Search

This analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of 1- versus 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in older patients. Data from 3 prospective, single-arm studies (XIENCE Short DAPT Program), including patients with high bleeding risk successfully treated with an everolimus-eluting stent (XIENCE, Abbott) were analyzed. DAPT was discontinued at 1 or at 3 months in patients free from ischemic events and adherent to DAPT. Patients were stratified according to age (≥75 and <75 years). The primary end point was all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI). The key secondary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 to 5 bleeding. The outcomes were assessed from 1 to 12 months after index PCI. Of 3,364 patients, 2,241 (66.6%) were aged ≥75 years. The risk of death or MI was similar with 1- versus 3-month DAPT in patients aged ≥75 (8.5% vs 8.0%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69 to 1.30) and <75 years (6.9% vs 7.8%, adjusted HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.57, interaction p = 0.478). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 to 5 bleeding was consistently lower with 1- than with 3-month DAPT in patients aged ≥75 years (7.2% vs 9.4%, adjusted HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91) and <75 years (9.7% vs 11.9%, adjusted HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.29, interaction p = 0.737). In conclusion, in patients at high bleeding risk who underwent PCI, patients older and younger than 75 years derived a consistent benefit from 1- compared with 3-month DAPT in terms of bleeding reduction, with no increase in all-cause death or MI at 1 year., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Spirito received a research grant for the Swiss National Science Foundation. Dr. Angiolillo declares that he has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi and Ventura, outside the present work. D.J.A. also declares that his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions and Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Bangalore received consulting fees or been on the advisory board for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Amgen, Pfizer,Merck, Viatris, and REATA. Dr. Vranckx received personal fees from Daichii Sankyo, Bayer AG, Pfizer-Bristol Meyers Squibb alliance, Novartis, CSL Behring not related to this research. 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, 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, TobeSoft; Chair: Inaugural Chair, American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; Consultant: Broadview Ventures, Hims; Data Monitoring Committees: Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo; for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute; Rutgers University (for the NIH-funded MINT Trial); Honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC 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 clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II 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), CSL Behring (AHA lecture), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, 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 operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today's Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), WebMD (CME steering committees), Wiley (steering committee); Other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); Patent: Sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned to Lexicon; neither I nor Brigham and Women's Hospital receive any income from this patent); Research Funding: Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Alnylam, 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, Otsuka, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, 89Bio; Royalties: Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald's Heart Disease); Site Co-Investigator: Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, Vascular Solutions; Trustee: American College of Cardiology; Unfunded Research: FlowCo, Takeda. Dr Campo received institutional research grants from SMT, Siemens, GE Healthcare, GADA and Abbott Vascular outside the present work. Dr. Neumann received grants or fees from Amgen, Bayer Health Care, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Ferrer, Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Vascular, and Medtronic. Dr. Toelg received speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and Biotronik. Dr. Valgimigli reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants and personal fees from Terumo, personal fees from Alvimedica/CID, personal fees from Abbott Vascular, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Opsens, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from CoreFLOW, personal fees from IDORSIA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, personal fees from Universität Basel | Dept. Klinische Forschung, personal fees from Vifor, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squib SA, personal fees from iVascular, personal fees from Medscape, outside the submitted work. Dr. Varenne received lectures fees by AV and Biotronik. Dr. Windecker reports research, travel or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Braun, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Cordis Medical, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Farapulse Inc. Fumedica, Guerbet, Idorsia, Inari Medical, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medalliance, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pharming Tech. Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, V-Wave. Dr Windecker served as advisory board member and/or member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, and V-Wave with payments to the institution but no personal payments. He is also member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. 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, Humacyte, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, PhaseBio, Philips, Pi-Cardia, PLx Pharma, RenalPro, RM Global, Shockwave, Vivasure, Zoll; personal fees from Cine-Med Research, Novartis, WebMD; equity <1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, Stel, ControlRad (spouse); scientific advisory board for AMA, ACC (BOT Member), SCAI (Women in Innovations Committee Member), JAMA associate editor; faculty CRF (no fee). The remaining authors have no competing interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Women have historically been disadvantaged in terms of care and outcomes for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). We describe patterns of presentation, care, and outcomes for NSTEMI by sex in a contemporary and geographically diverse cohort., Methods and Results: Prospective cohort study including 2947 patients (907 women, 2040 men) with Type I NSTEMI from 287 centres in 59 countries, stratified by sex. Quality of care was evaluated based on 12 guideline-recommended care interventions. The all-or-none scoring composite performance measure was used to define receipt of optimal care. Outcomes included acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, repeat myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, BARC Type ≥3 bleeding, or death in-hospital, as well as 30-day mortality. Women admitted with NSTEMI were older, more comorbid, and more frequently categorized as at higher ischaemic (GRACE >140, 54.0% vs. 41.7%, P < 0.001) and bleeding (CRUSADE >40, 51.7% vs. 17.6%, P < 0.001) risk than men. Women less frequently received invasive coronary angiography (ICA; 83.0% vs. 89.5%, P < 0.001), smoking cessation advice (46.4% vs. 69.5%, P < 0.001), and P2Y12 inhibitor prescription at discharge (81.9% vs. 90.0%, P < 0.001). Non-receipt of ICA was more often due to frailty for women than men (16.7% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.010). At ICA, more women than men had non-obstructive coronary artery disease or angiographically normal arteries (15.8% vs. 6.3%, P < 0.001). Rates of in-hospital adverse outcomes and 30-day mortality were low and did not differ by sex., Conclusion: In contemporary practice, women presenting with NSTEMI, compared with men, less frequently receive antiplatelet prescription, smoking cessation advice, or are considered eligible for ICA., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: H.B., K.H., P.L., R.N., and V.K. report no conflict of interest. C.P.G. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehrinher-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Vifor, Pharma, Menarini, Wondr Medical, Raisio Group, and Oxford University Press. He has received educational and research grants from BMS, Abbott Inc., the British Heart Foundation, National Institute of Health Research, Horizon 2020, and from the European Society of Cardiology, outside the submitted work. S.B. reports personal fees from Boston Scientific, Insight, Lifetech, iVascular, and Abbott Vascular. D.M. reports personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biosensors and Terumo. He has participated on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or Advisory Boards for Abbott and Boston Scientific. A.B. reports personal and institutional investigator fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Novartis, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer. He reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Novartis, and Bayer. He has participated in Data Safety Monitoring Boards or Advisory Boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, and Bayer. He has received support for attending meetings by Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, and Bayer. S.L. reports personal fees from ICON, Chiesi, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, and Novo Nordisk. M.L. reports speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Boehrinher-Ingelheim, Novartis and sanofi, and manuscript writing fees from Edwards Lifesciences. She has also participated as an advisory board member for sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, and Boehrinher-Ingelheim. Y.A. reports a research grant from the Dutch Heart Foundation. Signed COIs available for all authors., (© 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.)

Vasospastic angina (VSA) refers to chest pain experienced as a consequence of myocardial ischaemia caused by epicardial coronary spasm, a sudden narrowing of the vessels responsible for an inadequate supply of blood and oxygen. Coronary artery spasm is a heterogeneous phenomenon that can occur in patients with non-obstructive coronary arteries and obstructive coronary artery disease, with transient spasm causing chest pain and persistent spasm potentially leading to acute myocardial infarction (MI). VSA was originally described as Prinzmetal angina or variant angina, classically presenting at rest, unlike most cases of angina (though in some patients, vasospasm may be triggered by exertion, emotional, mental or physical stress), and associated with transient electrocardiographic changes (transient ST-segment elevation, depression and/or T-wave changes). Ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA) is not a benign condition, as patients are at elevated risk of cardiovascular events including acute coronary syndrome, hospitalization due to heart failure, stroke and repeat cardiovascular procedures. INOCA patients also experience impaired quality of life and associated increased healthcare costs. VSA, an endotype of INOCA, is associated with major adverse events, including sudden cardiac death, acute MI and syncope, necessitating the study of the most effective treatment options currently available. The present literature review aims to summarize current data relating to the diagnosis and management of VSA and provide details on the sequence that treatment should follow.

Repeat coronary revascularization is a common adverse event after successful percutaneous coronary intervention. This analysis aimed to assess the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy on repeat clinically driven revascularization (CDR). In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, high-risk patients were maintained on ticagrelor and randomly allocated to aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point of this analysis was CDR within 12 months after randomization. The key secondary end points were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or CDR, and net adverse clinical events (NACEs), including the individual components of MACCEs and clinically relevant bleeding. The analysis was performed in the per-protocol population. CDR occurred in 473 of 7,039 patients and was associated with a significantly higher risk of subsequent all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs] 2.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82 to 4.67). Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a similar 12-month risk of CDR (7.1% vs 6.6%; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30, p = 0.363) and MACCEs (8.9% vs 8.6%; HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, p = 0.619), and a lower risk of NACEs (12.2% vs 14.6%; HR 0.83 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94, p = 0.004) than ticagrelor plus aspirin. In conclusion, among high-risk patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a similar risk of CDR and MACCEs and a decrease of NACEs (TWILIGHT: NCT02270242)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Spirito received a research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Bern, Switzerland). Dr. Mehta has received grant support from and has served on an executive committee and as site investigator for AstraZeneca (Cambridge, United Kingdom). Dr. Mehran reports institutional research payments from Abbott, Abiomed, Alleviant Medical, Amgen, AM-Pharmacia, 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 Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, PhaseBio, Philips, Pi-Cardia, PLx Pharma, RenalPro, RM Global, Shockwave, Vivasure, Zoll; personal fees from Cine-Med Research, Novartis, WebMD; Equity <1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, Stel, ControlRad (spouse); Scientific Advisory Board for AMA, ACC (BOT Member), SCAI (Women in Innovations Committee Member), JAMA Associate Editor; Faculty CRF (no fee). Dr. Kastrati is an inventor in a patent application related to drug-eluting stent technology; he also serves in the Data and Safety Monitoring Board of the TARGET IV trial sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York. Dr. Angiolillo declares that he has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly (Gilead), Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer (New York, New York), Sanofi and Vectura; D.J.A. also declares that his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr. Baber has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr. Cohen has received grant support, paid to his institution, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; and has received grant support, paid to his institution, from Boston Scientific Dr. Dangas has received consulting fees and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; has received consulting fees from Biosensors; and previously held stock in Medtronic. Dr. Escaned has received consulting and lecture fees from Abbott, Philips, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has received lecture fees from Abiomed, Terumo, and Biosensors. Dr. Gibson has received grant support and consulting fees from Angel Medical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Portola Pharmaceuticals; has received consulting fees from The Medicines Company, Eli Lilly Sciences, Novo Nordisk, WebMD, UpToDate Cardiovascular Medicine, Amarin Pharma, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Merck, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Somahlution, Verreseon, Boston Scientific, Impact Bio, MedImmume, Medtelligence, MicroPort, the PERT Consortium, and GE Healthcare (Little Chalfont, United Kingdom); holds equity in Inference; serves as chief executive officer of the Baim Institute; and has received grant support, paid to the Baim Institute, from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Astra Zeneca. Dr. Huber has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Bayer. The remining authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients on long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is still uncertain., Objectives: The aim of this analysis was to assess the effects of 1- vs 3-month DAPT in patients with and those without concomitant OAC included in the XIENCE Short DAPT program., Methods: The XIENCE Short DAPT program enrolled patients with high bleeding risk who underwent successful PCI with a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. DAPT was discontinued at 1 or 3 months in patients free from ischemic events and adherent to treatment. The effect of 1- vs 3-month DAPT was compared in patients with and those without OAC using propensity score stratification. The primary endpoint was all-cause death or any myocardial infarction (MI). The key secondary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed from 1 to 12 months after index PCI., Results: Among 3,364 event-free patients, 1,462 (43%) were on OAC. Among OAC patients, the risk for death or MI was similar between 1- and 3-month DAPT (7.4% vs 8.8%; adjusted HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.49-1.11; P = 0.139), whereas BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding was lower with 1-month DAPT (adjusted HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.51-0.99; P = 0.046). These effects were consistent in patients with and those without OAC (P for interaction = NS)., Conclusions: Between 1 and 12 months after PCI, 1-month compared with 3-month DAPT was associated with similar rates of all-cause death or MI and a reduced rate of BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding, irrespective of OAC treatment., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The study was sponsored by Abbott. Dr Valgimigli has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi Sankyo, Opsens, Bayer, CoreFlow, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Universität Basel | Departement Klinische Forschung, Vifor, Bristol Myers Squibb, iVascular, and Medscape; and has received grants and personal fees from Terumo, outside the submitted work. Dr Spirito has received a research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Ventura, outside the submitted work; and has received research grants to his institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Bangalore has received consulting fees or has been an advisory board member for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, Viatris, and REATA. Dr Vranckx has received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Pfizer/Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and CSL Behring, not related to this research. Dr Bhatt has served on advisory boards for 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; has served on boards of directors for AngioWave, the Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, High Enroll, the Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; has stock or stock options with AngioWave, Bristol Myers Squibb, and DRS.LINQ; has served as inaugural chair of the American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; has been a consultant for Broadview Ventures; has served on data monitoring committees for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, the Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly the Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (chair, PEITHO trial), the Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards Lifesciences), Contego Medical (chair, PERFORMANCE 2 trial), the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical), Novartis, the Population Health Research Institute, and Rutgers University (for the National Institutes of Health–funded MINT trial); has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology (senior associate editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org, and chair of the American College of Cardiology Accreditation Oversight Committee), the law firm of Arnold and Porter (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), the Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly the Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee, funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee, funded by CSL Boehringer), Belvoir Publications (editor-in-chief, Harvard Heart Letter), the Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), Cowen & Company, the Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (editor-in-chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (guest editor, associate editor), K2P (cochair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (continuing medical education steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (course director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, the Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and U.S. national coleader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (chief medical editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), the Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (secretary and treasurer), WebMD (continuing medical education steering committees), and John Wiley (steering committee); has other relationships with Clinical Cardiology (deputy editor), the NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (chair), and the VA CART Research and Publications Committee (chair); has been named on a patent for sotagliflozin, assigned to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which assigned to Lexicon (neither Dr Bhatt nor Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives any income from this patent); has received research funding from 89Bio, Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, Myo-Kardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, the Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, and Youngene; has received royalties from Elsevier (editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwald’s Heart Disease); has been a site coinvestigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; has been a trustee for the American College of Cardiology; and has performed unfunded research for FlowCo andTakeda. Dr Campo has received institutional research grants outside the submitted work. Dr Neumann has received grants or fees from Amgen, Bayer Health Care, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Ferrer, Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Vascular, and Medtronic. Dr Toelg has received speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and Biotronik. Dr Windecker has received 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, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave; serves as an advisory board member and/or a member of the steering or executive groups 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 or executive committee groups of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding from industry, without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr Mehran has received 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, Humacyte, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, PhaseBio, Philips, Pi-Cardia, PLx Pharma, RenalPro, RM Global, Shockwave, Vivasure, and Zoll; has received personal fees from Cine-Med Research, Novartis, and WebMD; holds equity (<1%) in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, Stel, and ControlRad (spouse); is a scientific advisory board member for the American Medical Association, the American College of Cardiology (Board of Trustees member), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (Women in Innovations Committee member); is an associate editor for JAMA; and is a faculty member for the Cardiovascular Research Foundation (no fee). 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.)

Contemporary randomised trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) demonstrate no difference between patients treated with a conservative or invasive strategy with respect to all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction, although trials lack power to test for individual endpoints and long-term follow-up data are needed. Open-label trials consistently show greater improvement in symptoms and quality of life among patients with stable angina treated with PCI. Further studies are awaited to clarify this finding. In patients with severe left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and obstructive coronary artery disease in the Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction trial, PCI has not been found to improve all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation or recovery of LV function when compared with medical therapy. PCI was, however, performed without additional hazard and so remains a treatment option when there are favourable patient characteristics. The majority of patients reported no angina, and the low burden of angina in many of the randomised PCI trials is a widely cited limitation. Despite contentious evidence, elective PCI for CCS continues to play a significant role in UK clinical practice. While PCI for urgent indications has more than doubled since 2006, the rate of elective PCI remains unchanged. PCI remains an important strategy when symptoms are not well controlled, and we should maximise its value with appropriate patient selection. In this review, we provide a framework to assist in critical interpretation of findings from most recent trials and meta-analysis evidence., Competing Interests: Competing interests: VK is an associate editor for Heart., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Physical activity presents an important cornerstone in the management and care of coronary artery disease (CAD) patients following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and research in older patients continues to be overlooked. This study evaluated differences in physical activity, inactivity and sleep of CAD patients following PCI for acute coronary syndrome consisting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) and elective admission of stable angina patients over 12 months., Methods: This was an observational, longitudinal study. Fifty-eight patients were recruited (STEMI, n  = 20, NSTEMI, n  = 18 and stable angina, n  = 20) and completed 7-day monitoring (physical activity, inactivity and sleep) using wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometers (GENEActiv, ActivInsights Ltd, Kimbolton, Cambridgeshire, UK) upon discharge from a tertiary centre and repeated measurements at 3 months ( n  = 43), 6 months ( n  = 40) and 12 months ( n  = 33)., Results: Following PCI, CAD patients showed a general trend of increasing light and moderate-vigorous physical activity over the 12-month follow-up. Time in inactivity remained high but decreased over time. Sleep duration and sleep efficiency remained consistent. NSTEMI patients spent less time asleep, more time inactive and less time in light and moderate-vigorous physical activity in comparison to STEMI and stable angina patients. Differences between the groups over time were minimal., Conclusion: These findings suggest that older patients with CAD spend long periods in inactivity but the increasing trend of both light and moderate-vigorous physical activity over time presents a positive change in behaviour in the year following PCI., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the COMPLETE trial (Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization to Treat Multivessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI), a strategy of complete revascularization reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events compared with culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. Patients with diabetes have a worse prognosis following STEMI. We evaluated the consistency of the effects of complete revascularization in patients with and without diabetes., Methods: The COMPLETE trial randomized a strategy of complete revascularization, consisting of angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention of all suitable nonculprit lesions, versus a strategy of culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (guideline-directed medical therapy alone). In prespecified analyses, treatment effects were determined in patients with and without diabetes on the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction and the second coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death, new myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. Interaction P values were calculated to evaluate whether there was a differential treatment effect in patients with and without diabetes., Results: Of the 4041 patients enrolled in the COMPLETE trial, 787 patients (19.5%) had diabetes. The median HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin) was 7.7% in the diabetes group and 5.7% in the nondiabetes group. Complete revascularization consistently reduced the first coprimary outcome in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.59-1.29]) and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.90]), with no evidence of a differential treatment effect (interaction P =0.36). Similarly, for the second coprimary outcome, no differential treatment effect (interaction P =0.27) of complete revascularization was found in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.43-0.87]) and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.39-0.60])., Conclusions: Among patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over a culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention strategy was consistent regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Mehta reports grants from Canadian Institute of Health Research, grants from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific, during the conduct of the study. Dr Mehran reports grants and other from Abbott, grants and other from Abiomed, grants and other from Applied Therapeutics, grants and other from Arena, grants from AstraZeneca, grants and other from Bayer, grants and other from Biosensors, grants, personal fees and other from Boston Scientific, grants and other from CardiaWave, grants from CellAegis, grants from CERC, grants and other from Chiesi, grants and other from Concept Medical, grants and other from CSL Behring, grants and other from DSI, grants from Insel Gruppe AG, grants and other from Medtronic, other from Novartis, grants from OrbusNeich, grants and other from Philips, grants from Transverse Medical, grants from Zoll, personal fees from California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), personal fees from Cine-Med Research, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from WebMD, personal fees from SCAI, other from AM Pharma, other from Alleviant Medical, other from CeloNova BioSciences, other from Duke University, other from Humacyte, from Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from AMA, other from Biotronik, other from Elixir Medical, other from STEL, other from ControlRad, other from CRF, other from ACC, outside the submitted work. Dr Storey reports personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Thromboserin, grants and personal fees from Glycardial Diagnostics, personal fees from Portola, personal fees from Medscape, grants and personal fees from Cytosorbents, personal fees from Intas Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Hengrui, personal fees from Sanofi Aventis, personal fees from Idorsia, personal fees from PhaseBio, personal fees from Alnylam, personal fees from CSL-Behring, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Chiesi, outside the submitted work. Dr Pinilla-Echeverri reports grants from Boston Scientific, grants from AstraZeneca, grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, grants from Population Health Research Institute, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Abbott, personal fees from Philips, personal fees from Conavi, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr Moreno reports other from Abbott Vascular, other from Boston Scientific, other from Biosensors, other from Biotronik, other from Medtronic Inc., other from Daiichi-Sankyo, other from AMGEN, other from AstraZeneca, other from Edwards Lifesciences, other from Terumo, other from Philips, other from Cardinal Health, outside the submitted work. Dr Steg reports grants and personal fees from Amarin, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Idorsia, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Novo Nordisk, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Sanofi/Lexicon, grants and personal fees from Servier, personal fees from Myokardia, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Phase Bio, outside the submitted work. Dr Cairns reports grants from Boston Scientific, grants from Astra Zeneca, grants from CIHR, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Abbott, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from BMS Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr Sibbald reports grants from Abbott Vascular and Phillips. The remainder of authors have nothing to disclose.

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

Background: Prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are often older and present with multiple comorbidities. Ticagrelor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has emerged as an effective bleeding-avoidance strategy among high-risk patients., Aims: We aimed to examine the effects of ticagrelor with or without aspirin in prior CABG patients undergoing PCI within the TWILIGHT trial., Methods: After 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients were randomised to either aspirin or placebo, in addition to ticagrelor, for 12 months and compared by prior CABG status. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke., Results: Out of 7,119 patients, a total of 703 (10.8%) patients had prior CABG within the randomised cohort. Prior CABG patients had more comorbidities and a higher incidence of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding and death, MI or stroke at 1 year after randomisation, compared with patients without prior CABG. Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with significantly less BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding among prior CABG patients compared with DAPT (4.9% vs 9.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.90; p interaction =0.676) and similar rates of death, MI or stroke (10.0% vs 8.7%, HR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.87; p interaction =0.484). When comparing target vessel type, treatment effects were consistent among graft- and native-vessel interventions., Conclusions: In high-risk patients with prior CABG, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced bleeding without compromising ischaemic outcomes compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin.

According to the Global Burden of Disease study, in 2019, there were an estimated 275.2 million cases of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women worldwide. Although there was a decrease in the global age-standardised prevalence of CVD in women between 1990 and 2010 (-5.8%), there has been a slight increase (1.0%) since 2010. There were an estimated 6.10 million deaths from CVD in women in 1990, rising to 8.94 million in 2019. Hospital admissions of young women with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) steadily increased from 27% in 1995-1999 to 32% in 2010-2014. Women with AMI compared with men are less likely to receive guideline-indicated pharmacological (aspirin 93.4% vs 94.7%, P2Y 12 inhibitors 79.3% vs 86.1% and statins 73.7% vs 77.5%) and revascularisation treatments (angiography (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.71), percutaneous coronary intervention (aOR 0.73)). Women represent <39% of clinical cardiovascular trial participants between 2010 and 2017. Major factors of under-representation in studies included concerns about the burden of participation on health and time. Women were more likely than men to document caring responsibilities as reasons for not participating in a clinical trial. Current clinical practice guidelines recommending risk stratification to guide the appropriateness of an invasive strategy in the context of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may not be applicable to women given lack of studies specifically evaluating women using contemporary treatment strategies. In our review, we identify significant limitations in the evidence base for the best care of women with ACS, emphasising the need for well-designed clinical trials specifically recruiting women., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aims: Restoration of myocardial blood flow and perfusion during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) measured using Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade (TFG) and perfusion grade (TMPG) is associated with improved outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Associations between TFG/TMPG and changes in biomarkers reflecting myocardial damage/dysfunction and inflammation is unknown., Methods and Results: Among 2606 patients included, TFG was evaluated in 2198 and TMPG in 1874 with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST-segment ACS (NSTE-ACS). Biomarkers reflecting myocardial necrosis [troponin T (TnT)], myocardial dysfunction [N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)], inflammation [interleukin-6 (IL-6) and C-reactive protein (CRP)], and oxidative stress/ageing/inflammation [growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15)] were measured at baseline, discharge, and 1- and 6-month post-randomization. Associations between TFG/TMPG and changes in biomarker levels were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon signed test. In total, 1423 (54.6%) patients had STEMI and 1183 (45.4%) NSTE-ACS. Complete reperfusion after PCI with TFG = 3 was achieved in 1110 (85.3%) with STEMI and in 793 (88.5%) with NSTE-ACS. Normal myocardial perfusion with TMPG = 3 was achieved in 475 (41.6%) with STEMI and in 396 (54.0%) with NSTE-ACS. Levels of TnT, NT-proBNP, IL-6, CRP, and GDF-15 were substantially lower at discharge in patients with complete vs. incomplete TFG and STEMI (P < 0.01). This pattern was not observed for patients with NSTE-ACS. Patients with normal vs. abnormal TMPG and NSTE-ACS had lower levels of NT-proBNP at discharge (P = 0.01)., Conclusions: Successful restoration of epicardial blood flow in STEMI was associated with less myocardial necrosis/dysfunction and inflammation. Attainment of normal myocardial perfusion was associated with less myocardial dysfunction in NSTE-ACS., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Despite advances in the overall management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cardiogenic shock in the setting of AMI (CS-AMI) continues to be associated with poor patient outcomes. There are multiple devices that can be used in CS-AMI to support the failing circulation, although their utility in improving outcomes as compared with conventional pharmacotherapy of vasopressors and inotropes remains to be established. This contemporary review provides an update on the evidence base for each of these techniques. In CS-AMI, acute thrombotic occlusion of a major epicardial artery leads to hypoxia and myocardial ischaemia in the territory subtended by that vessel. The resultant regional dysfunction in myocardial contractility can severely compromise stroke volume and result in acute circulatory failure, systemic hypoperfusion, lactic acidosis, multi-organ failure and ultimately death., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate if patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) could benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy in terms of bleeding reduction without any compromise in ischemic event prevention., Background: Patients with history of MI who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain at risk for recurrent ischemic events. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for this cohort remains debated., Methods: In this prespecified analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, the authors evaluated the impact of history of MI on treatment effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stent with at least 1 clinical and 1 angiographic high-risk feature and free from adverse events at 3 months after index PCI. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, and the key secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, MI, or stroke, both at 12 months after randomization., Results: A total of 1,937 patients (29.7%) with and 4,595 patients (70.3%) without prior MI were randomized to ticagrelor and placebo or ticagrelor and aspirin. At 1 year after randomization, patients with prior MI experienced higher rates of death, MI, or stroke (5.7% vs 3.2%; P < 0.001) but similar BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding (5.0% vs 5.5%; P = 0.677) compared with patients without prior MI. Ticagrelor monotherapy consistently reduced the risk for the primary bleeding outcome in patients with (3.4% vs 6.7%; HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.33-0.76) and without (4.2% vs 7.0%; HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.76; P interaction  = 0.54) prior MI. Rates of the key secondary ischemic outcome were not significantly different between treatment groups irrespective of history of MI (prior MI, 6.0% vs 5.5% [HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.75-1.58]; no prior MI, 3.1% vs 3.3% [HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.67-1.28]; P interaction  = 0.52)., Conclusions: Ticagrelor monotherapy is associated with significantly lower risk for bleeding events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, without any compromise in ischemic prevention, among high-risk patients with history of MI undergoing PCI. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was conducted with support from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. Dr Baber has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr Sharma has received Speakers Bureau fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr Dangas has received personal fees from Biosensors and Philips. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has received payments for participation in review activities from CeloNova and St Jude Medical, outside the present work; and has received research grants to his institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Stefanini has received a research grant from Boston Scientific; and has received speaker and consulting fees from Bayer, Braun, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo and GADA, outside the submitted work. Dr Gibson has received grants and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, Janssen, and CSL Behring; has received personal fees from Bayer, AstraZeneca (during the conduct of the study), Angel Medical Corporation, The Medicines Company, the Boston Clinical Research Institute, the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Gilead Sciences, WebMD, UpToDate in Cardiovascular Medicine, Boehringer Ingelheim, Somahlution, Vereseon, Boston Scientific, the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Medtelligence, Microport, PERT Consortium, Caladrius Biosciences, CeleCor Therapeutics, Thrombolytic Science, Eidos Therapeutics, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Microdrop, MD Magazine, MJ Health, Samsung, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Revance Therapeutics, Pfizer, GenTech, CytoSorbents, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Syneos Health, and Amarin; has received other compensation from nference, Dyad Medical, and Absolutys, and PhaseBio; has received nonfinancial support from the Baim Institute; and has received grants from the SCAD Alliance, outside the submitted work. Dr Mehran has received institutional grants from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo Inc, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and OrbusNeich; has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, Janssen, Scientific Affairs, Sanofi, and Siemens Medical Solutions; has received consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott Laboratories and Bristol Myers Squibb; and is an advisory board member (funding paid to the institution) for Spectranetics/Philips/Volcano. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A substantial number of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) experience periprocedural myocardial injury or infarction. Accurate diagnosis of these PCI-related complications is required to guide further management given that their occurrence may be associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Due to lack of scientific data, the cut-off thresholds of post-PCI cardiac troponin (cTn) elevation used for defining periprocedural myocardial injury and infarction, have been selected based on expert consensus opinions, and their prognostic relevance remains unclear. In this Consensus Document from the ESC Working Group on Cellular Biology of the Heart and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), we recommend, whenever possible, the measurement of baseline (pre-PCI) cTn and post-PCI cTn values in all CCS patients undergoing PCI. We confirm the prognostic relevance of the post-PCI cTn elevation >5× 99th percentile URL threshold used to define type 4a myocardial infarction (MI). In the absence of periprocedural angiographic flow-limiting complications or electrocardiogram (ECG) and imaging evidence of new myocardial ischaemia, we propose the same post-PCI cTn cut-off threshold (>5× 99th percentile URL) be used to define prognostically relevant 'major' periprocedural myocardial injury. As both type 4a MI and major periprocedural myocardial injury are strong independent predictors of all-cause mortality at 1 year post-PCI, they may be used as quality metrics and surrogate endpoints for clinical trials. Further research is needed to evaluate treatment strategies for reducing the risk of major periprocedural myocardial injury, type 4a MI, and MACE in CCS patients undergoing PCI., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Gender is a strong predictor of periprocedural major bleeding complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The access site represents an important site of such bleeding complications, which has driven adoption of the transradial access (TRA) use during PCI, although female gender is an independent predictor of transradial PCI failure. This study sought to define gender differences in access site practice and study associations between access site choice and clinical outcomes for PCI over a 6-year period, through the analysis of the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society observational database., Methods and Results: In-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of in-hospital mortality and in-hospital myocardial reinfarction and target vessel revascularization), in-hospital bleeding complications, and 30-day mortality were studied based on gender and access site choice (transfemoral access, TRA) in 412,122 patients who underwent PCI between 2007 and 2012 in the United Kingdom. Use of TRA increased in both genders over time, although this lagged behind in women (21% in 2007 to 58% in 2012) compared with men (24% in 2007 to 64% in 2012). In both men and women, TRA was independently associated with a lower in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular event (odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.90; OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.84), in-hospital major bleeding (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.44-0.66; OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.20-0.33), and 30-day mortality (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.89; OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.94), respectively., Conclusions: Where possible, TRA should be considered as the preferred access site choice for PCI, particularly in women in whom the greatest reductions bleeding end points were observed across all indications., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The mortality rate among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in the setting of cardiac arrest (CA) and whether the location where the patient sustains CA influences the outcome is not known in the contemporary era., Methods: Prospectively collected data at a tertiary cardiac centre on all patients undergoing PPCI for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in the setting of CA was analysed., Results: In total, 484/4118 (11.8%) patients sustained CA during the study period. Of these, 91/484 (18.8%) sustained CA prior to ambulance arrival, the remainder occurred either after ambulance arrival or in hospital. The overall in-hospital mortality was 20.5% in this cohort. Those sustaining CA before ambulance arrival experienced the highest unadjusted mortality compared to those that had CA after ambulance arrival, in hospital and in the catheterisation laboratory (29.7% versus 12.0%, 16.1% and 23.8% respectively, p=0.03). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the following parameters are independent predictors of in-hospital mortality: age (odds ratio (OR) for each year increment of age 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.08, p=0.0009); female gender (OR 2.42; 95% CI 1.17-4.99, p=0.0173); previous PCI (OR 7.59; 95% CI 1.72-33.53, p=0.0075); asystole/ electromechanical dissociation (EMD) (OR 13.43; 95% CI 5.34-33.80, p<0.0001); and patient location at arrest (OR 5.77 for before ambulance arrival; 95% CI 2.55-13.07, p<0.0001)., Conclusions: In conclusion, in-hospital mortality remains high among patients undergoing PPCI in the context of CA, particularly among those that arrest prior to ambulance arrival., (© The European Society of Cardiology 2014.)

Background: Microvascular obstruction (MVO) secondary to ischaemic-reperfusion injury is an important but underappreciated determinant of short- and longer-term outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Several small studies have demonstrated a reduction in the degree of MVO utilising a variety of vasoactive agents, with adenosine and sodium nitroprusside (SNP) being most evaluated. However, the evidence base remains weak as the trials have had variable endpoints, differing drug doses and delivery. As such, the results regarding benefit are conflicting., Methods: The REperfusion Facilitated by LOcal adjunctive therapy in STEMI (REFLO-STEMI) trial is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, open label, study with blinded endpoint analysis: Patients presenting within 6 h of onset of STEMI and undergoing planned primary PCI (P-PCI) with TIMI 0/1 flow in the infarct-related artery (IRA) and no significant bystander coronary artery disease on angiography, are randomised into one of three groups: PCI with adjunctive pharmacotherapy (intracoronary adenosine or SNP) or control (standard PCI). All receive Bivalirudin anticoagulation and thrombus aspiration. The primary outcome is infarct size (IS) (determined as a percentage of total left ventricular mass) measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) undertaken at 48 to 72 h post P-PCI. Secondary outcome measures include MVO (hypoenhancement within infarct core) on CMRI, angiographic markers of microvascular perfusion and MACE during 1-month follow-up. The study aims to recruit 240 patients (powered at 80% to detect a 5% absolute reduction in IS)., Discussion: The REFLO-STEMI study has been designed to address the weaknesses of previous trials, which have collectively failed to demonstrate whether adjunctive pharmacotherapy with adenosine and/or SNP can reduce measures of myocardial injury (infarct size and MVO) and improve clinical outcome, despite good basic evidence that they have the potential to attenuate this process. The REFLO-STEMI study will be the most scientifically robust trial to date evaluating whether adjunctive therapy (intracoronary adenosine or SNP following thrombus aspiration) reduces CMRI measured IS and MVO in patients undergoing P-PCI within 6 h of onset of STEMI., Trial Registration: Trial registered 20th November 2012: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01747174.

Background: Delayed arrival to a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI)-capable hospital following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with poorer outcome. The influence of patient characteristics on delayed presentation during STEMI is unknown., Methods and Results: This was a retrospective observational study. Patients presenting for PPCI from March 2008 to November 2011 in the north of England (Northumbria, Tyne and Wear) were included. The outcomes were self-presentation to a non-PPCI-capable hospital, symptom to first medical contact (STFMC) time, total ischaemic time and mortality during follow-up. STEMI patients included numbered 2297; 619 (26.9%) patients self-presented to a non-PPCI-capable hospital. STFMC of >30 min and total ischaemic time of >180 min was present in 1521 (70.7%) and 999 (44.9%) cases, respectively. Self-presentation was the strongest predictor of prolonged total ischaemic time (odds ratio, OR (95% confidence interval, CI): 5.05 (3.99-6.39)). Married patients (OR 1.38 (1.10-1.74)) and patients living closest to an Emergency Room self-presented more commonly (driving time (vs. ≤10 min) 11-20 min OR 0.66 (0.52-0.83), >20 minutes OR 0.46 (0.33-0.64). Unmarried females waited longest to call for help (OR vs. married males 1.89 (1.29-2.78) and experienced longer total ischaemic times (OR 1.51 (1.10-2.07)). Married patients had a borderline association with lower mortality (hazard ratio 0.75 (0.53-1.05), p=0.09)., Conclusions: Unmarried female patients had the longest treatment delays. Married patients and those living closer to an Emergency Room self-present more frequently. Early and exclusive use of the ambulance service may reduce treatment delay and improve STEMI outcome., (© The European Society of Cardiology 2014.)

Among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of death, complicating up to 10% of admissions. Introduction of early revascularization strategies and mechanical ventricular support have seen short-term mortality associated with CS fall from 70% to 80% in the 1970s to approximately 50% to 60% in the 1990s. Previous studies reported a higher incidence of CS after AMI in women (11.6% vs 8.3%). The aims of this study were to determine hospital mortality outcomes and gender differences following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in the setting of CS. Data were collected prospectively among all patients undergoing PPCI for AMI at a large UK tertiary cardiac center between April 2008 and October 2011. A sample of 2,864 patients (women: 844 [29.5%]) underwent PPCI, of which 141 (4.9%) had a confirmed diagnosis of CS. Eighty-one of 2,019 [4.0%] male patients (mean age: 64.2 years) and 60 of 844 [7.1%]) female patients (mean age: 69.9 years) with CS underwent PPCI (p <0.001). The overall hospital mortality was 35.5% with no gender difference (male: 35.8% vs female: 35%, p >0.99). In conclusion, this analysis demonstrates that in the contemporary PPCI era, there is a reduction in the incidence of CS with reduced hospital mortality rates and no gender difference. The absence of a gender difference is remarkable because higher proportions of women presented with CS and were older than their male counterparts. Long-term follow-up data are required to determine if this difference is sustained., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The mean age of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is steadily increasing. In older patients, there is a tendency to underutilize invasive approach, coronary revascularization, up-to-date pharmacological therapies, and secondary prevention strategies, including cardiac rehabilitation. Older adults with CAD commonly exhibit atypical symptoms, multi-vessel disease involvement, complex coronary anatomy, and a higher presence of risk factors and comorbidities. Although both invasive procedures and medical treatments are characterized by a higher risk of complications, avoidance may result in a suboptimal outcome. Often, overlooked factors, such as coronary microvascular disease, malnutrition, and poor physical performance, play a key role in determining prognosis, yet they are not routinely assessed or addressed in older patients. Historically, clinicians have relied on sub-analyses or observational findings to make clinical decisions, as older adults were frequently excluded or under-represented in clinical studies. Recently, dedicated evidence through randomized clinical trials has become available for older CAD patients. Nevertheless, the management of older CAD patients still raises several important questions. This review aims to comprehensively summarize and critically evaluate this emerging evidence, focusing on invasive management and coronary revascularization. Furthermore, it seeks to contextualize these interventions within the framework of improved risk stratification tools for older CAD patients, through user-friendly scales along with emphasizing the importance of promoting physical activity and exercise training to enhance the outcomes of invasive and medical treatments. This comprehensive approach may represent the key to improving prognosis in the complex and growing patient population of older CAD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims A routine invasive strategy is recommended in the management of higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs). However, patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were excluded from key trials that informed these guidelines. Thus, the benefit of a routine invasive strategy is less certain in this specific subgroup. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies were RCTs of routine invasive vs. a conservative or selective invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS that included patients with previous CABG. Summary data were collected from the authors of each trial if not previously published. Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and cardiac-related hospitalization. Using a random-effects model, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results Summary data were obtained from 11 RCTs, including previously unpublished subgroup outcomes of nine trials, comprising 897 patients with previous CABG (477 routine invasive, 420 conservative/selective invasive) followed up for a weighted mean of 2.0 (range 0.5–10) years. A routine invasive strategy did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97–1.29), cardiac mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.70–1.58), myocardial infarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65–1.23), or cardiac-related hospitalization (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78–1.40). Conclusions This is the first meta-analysis assessing the effect of a routine invasive strategy in patients with prior CABG who present with NSTE-ACS. The results confirm the under-representation of this patient group in RCTs of invasive management in NSTE-ACS and suggest that there is no benefit to a routine invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach with regard to major adverse cardiac events. These findings should be validated in an adequately powered RCT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care including coronary angiography and revascularization. Evidence-based recommendations regarding interventional management strategies in this patient cohort are scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of routine invasive vs. conservative management of NSTEACS by using individual patient data (IPD) from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including older patients. Methods MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus were searched between 1 January 2010 and 11 September 2023. RCTs investigating routine invasive and conservative strategies in persons >70 years old with NSTEACS were included. Observational studies or trials involving populations outside the target range were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. One-stage IPD meta-analyses were adopted by use of random-effects and fixed-effect Cox models. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023379819). Results Six eligible studies were identified including 1479 participants. The primary endpoint occurred in 181 of 736 (24.5%) participants in the invasive management group compared with 215 of 743 (28.9%) participants in the conservative management group with a hazard ratio (HR) from random-effects model of 0.87 (95% CI 0.63–1.22; P =.43). The hazard for MI at 1 year was significantly lower in the invasive group compared with the conservative group (HR from random-effects model 0.62, 95% CI 0.44–0.87; P =.006). Similar results were seen for urgent revascularization (HR from random-effects model 0.41, 95% CI 0.18–0.95; P =.037). There was no significant difference in mortality. Conclusions No evidence was found that routine invasive treatment for NSTEACS in older patients reduces the risk of a composite of all-cause mortality and MI within 1 year compared with conservative management. However, there is convincing evidence that invasive treatment significantly lowers the risk of repeat MI or urgent revascularisation. Further evidence is needed from ongoing larger clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses a study that explores the impact of cognitive impairment on the long-term risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in older adults with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) undergoing invasive treatment. The study found that cognitive impairment was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, even after adjusting for frailty and other factors. However, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of MACEs between the cognitively impaired group and the normal cognition group. The findings suggest that routine cognitive screening may be beneficial in risk stratification for older adults with NSTEACS. [Extracted from the article]

This document provides a concise summary of the given text, which discusses the role of physiology in the management of coronary artery disease (CAD). It emphasizes the importance of coronary physiology assessment in guiding revascularization procedures and improving patient outcomes. The text also highlights the benefits of functional assessment in terms of improving quality of life and reducing the risk of cardiac events and residual angina. It mentions ongoing clinical trials that aim to further investigate the prognostic impact of these assessments and explore therapeutic strategies to protect the microcirculation after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Overall, the document presents coronary physiology assessment as an essential tool for improving the prognosis and quality of life of patients with CAD. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the role of physiology in managing nonculprit lesions in acute coronary syndrome. Topics include the evidence supporting complete revascularization strategies for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease, as demonstrated by the COMPLETE trial, which showed improved outcomes in terms of mortality and angina scores.

The older population represents a unique subset of patients due to a higher rate of comorbidities and risk factors, which can lead to a higher rate of ischemic and bleeding events. As a result, older adults are mainly underrepresented or excluded from randomized trials. Although the advancement in the percutaneous coronary intervention field with the development of new technologies, techniques, and potent antiplatelet therapy led to a reduction of ischemic risk, there is still a concern regarding bleeding hazards. Apart from the global utilization of less invasive trans-radial approach and proton pump inhibitors to reduce bleeding risk, proper tailoring of antiplatelet therapy in the older person is imperative. So far, several antiplatelet drugs have been introduced in different clinical scenarios, with dual antiplatelet therapy (combination of acetylsalicylic acid and P2Y12 inhibitor) recommended after percutaneous coronary intervention. The decision on the choice of antiplatelet drug and the DAPT duration is challenging and should be based on the relationship between ischemia and bleeding with the purpose of reducing ischemic events but not at the expense of increased bleeding complications. This is particularly important in the older population, where the evidence is obscure. The main objective of this review is to summarize the available evidence on contemporary antiplatelet therapy and different approaches of de-escalation strategies in older patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Microvascular obstruction (MVO) is a recognised phenomenon following mechanical reperfusion in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Invasive and non-invasive modalities to detect and measure the extent of MVO vary in their accuracy, suggesting that this phenomenon may reflect a spectrum of pathophysiological changes at the level of coronary microcirculation. The importance of detecting MVO lies in the observation that its presence adds incremental risk to patients following STEMI treatment. This increased risk is associated with adverse cardiac remodelling seen on cardiac imaging, increased infarct size, and worse patient outcomes. This review provides an outline of the pathophysiology, clinical implications, and prognosis of MVO in STEMI. It describes historic and novel pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies to address this phenomenon in conjunction with primary PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Women have an increased prevalence of myocardial infarction (MI) with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA). Whether sex differences exist in the outcomes of patients with MI and obstructive coronary arteries (MIOCA) vs. MINOCA remains unclear. We describe sex-based differences in diagnosis, treatment, and clinical outcomes of patients with MINOCA vs. MIOCA. Methods and results A large-scale cohort study of patients with ST/non-ST elevation MI undergoing coronary angiography (01/2015–12/2019). Patient demographics, diagnosis, prescribed discharge medications, in-hospital complications, and follow-up data were prospectively collected. A total of 13 202 participants were included (males 68.2% and females 31.8%). 10.9% were diagnosed with MINOCA. Median follow-up was 4.62 years. Females (44.8%) were as commonly diagnosed with MINOCA as males (55.2%), unlike the male preponderance in MIOCA (male, 69.8%; female, 30.2%). Less secondary prevention medications were prescribed at discharge for MINOCA than MIOCA. There was no difference in mortality risk between MINOCA and MIOCA [in-hospital: adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–2.35, P = 0.350; long term: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.81–1.31, P = 0.813]. MINOCA patients had reduced mortality at long-term follow-up if prescribed secondary prevention medications (aHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47–0.87, P = 0.004). Females diagnosed with MIOCA had greater odds of in-hospital and 1-year mortality than males (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.09–2.07, P = 0.014; aHR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01–1.38, P = 0.048). Conclusion MINOCA patients have similar mortality rates as MIOCA patients. MINOCA patients were less likely than those with MIOCA to be discharged with guideline-recommended secondary prevention therapy; however, those with MINOCA who received secondary prevention survived longer. Females with MIOCA experienced higher mortality rates vs. males. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A review in 2018 of a broad spectrum of clinical trials for cardiovascular disease including heart failure, coronary artery disease, and ACS showed that women were under-represented in almost all.[4] Furthermore, when they are included, women are more likely to be lost to follow-up during the trial period. Each year, cardiovascular disease maintains its status as the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in women.[1] In their most recent published statistics, the World Health Organization showed that ischaemic heart disease, stroke, and hypertension resulted in over 7.5 million deaths in women globally in 2019. [Extracted from the article]

Aim Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes in older patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The impact of frailty on long-term clinical outcomes following invasive management of non-ST elevation ACS (NSTEACS) is unknown. Methods and results The multi-centre Improve Clinical Outcomes in high-risk patieNts with ACS 1 (ICON-1) prospective cohort study consisted of patients aged =75 years undergoing coronary angiography following NSTEACS. Patients were categorized by frailty assessed by Canadian Study of Health and Ageing Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Fried criteria. The primary composite endpoint was all-cause mortality, unplanned revascularization, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. Of 263 patients, 33 (12.5%) were frail, 152 (57.8%) were pre-frail, and 78 (29.7%) were robust according to CFS. By Fried criteria, 70 patients (26.6%, mean age 82.1 years) were frail, 147 (55.9%, mean age 81.3 years) were pre-frail, and 46 (17.5%, mean age 79.9 years) were robust. The composite endpoint was more common at 5 years among patients with frailty according to CFS (frail: 22, 66.7%; pre-frail: 81, 53.3%; robust: 27, 34.6%, P=0.003), with a similar trend when using Fried criteria (frail: 39, 55.7%; pre-frail: 72, 49.0%; robust: 16, 34.8%, P=0.085). Frailty measured with both CFS and Fried criteria was associated with the primary endpoint [age and sex-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) compared with robust groups. CFS: 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-4.02, P=0.008; Fried: HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.00-3.27, P=0.048]. Conclusion In older patients who underwent angiography following NSTEACS, frailty is associated with an increased risk of the primary composite endpoint at 5 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Older patients presenting with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) require holistic assessment. We carried out a longitudinal cohort study to investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of older, frail adults with NSTEACS undergoing coronary angiography.Methods: 217 consecutive patients aged ≥65 years (mean age 80.9±4.0 years, 60.8% male) with NSTEACS referred for coronary angiography were recruited from two tertiary cardiac centres between November 2012 and December 2015. Frailty was assessed with the Fried Frailty Index; a score of 0 was characterised as robust, 1-2 prefrail and ≥3 frail. The Short Form Survey 36 (SF-36), an HRQoL tool consisting of eight domains spanning physical and mental health, was performed at baseline and 1 year.Results: 186 patients (85.7%) had invasive revascularisation. At baseline, 52 (23.9%) patients were frail and 121 (55.8%) were prefrail, with most SF-36 domains falling below the norm-population mean. Patients with frailty had lower mean scores in all physical SF-36 domains (p≤0.05) compared with those without frailty. Robust patients had temporal improvement in two domains (role physical +5.80 (95% CI 1.31 to 10.3) and role emotional +6.46 (95% CI 1.02 to 11.9)) versus patients with frailty and prefrailty, who had a collective improvement in a greater number of physical and psychological domains at 1 year (2 domains vs 11 domains), notably role physical (prefrail +6.53 (95% CI 3.85 to 9.20) and frail +10.4 (95% CI 6.7814.1)).Conclusions: Frail older adults with NSTEACS have poor HRQoL. One year following invasive management, there are modest improvements in HRQoL, most marked in frail and prefrail patients, who received a proportionally larger benefit than robust patients.Trial Registration Number: NCT01933581. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) represent a prevalent subgroup among those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Early aspirin discontinuation after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has emerged as a bleeding avoidance strategy. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT in a contemporary HBR population. Methods and results This prespecified analysis of the TWILIGHT trial evaluated the treatment effects of early aspirin withdrawal followed by ticagrelor monotherapy in HBR patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents. After 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free patients were randomized to 12 months of aspirin or placebo in addition to ticagrelor. A total of 1064 (17.2%) met the Academic Research Consortium definition for HBR. Ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in HBR (6.3% vs. 11.4%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35–0.82) and non-HBR patients (3.5% vs. 5.9%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46–0.77) with similar relative (P interaction = 0.67) but a trend towards greater absolute risk reduction in the former [−5.1% vs. −2.3%; difference in absolute risk differences (ARDs) −2.8%, 95% CI −6.4% to 0.8%, P  = 0.130]. A similar pattern was observed for more severe BARC 3 or 5 bleeding with a larger absolute risk reduction in HBR patients (−3.5% vs. −0.5%; difference in ARDs −3.0%, 95% CI −5.2% to −0.8%, P  = 0.008). There was no significant difference in the key secondary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between treatment arms, irrespective of HBR status. Conclusions Among HBR patients undergoing PCI who completed 3-month DAPT without experiencing major adverse events, aspirin discontinuation followed by ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced bleeding without increasing ischaemic events, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. The absolute risk reduction in major bleeding was larger in HBR than non-HBR patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) occurs more frequently in older patients with an increased occurrence of recurrent cardiac events following the index presentation. Telomeres are structures consisting of repeated DNA sequences as associated shelterin proteins at the ends of chromosomes. We aim to determine whether telomere length (TL) and telomerase activity (TA) predicted poor outcomes in older patients presenting with NSTEACS undergoing invasive care. Method: Older patients undergoing invasive management for NSTEACS were recruited to the ICON-1 biomarker study (NCT01933581). Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were recovered on 153 patients. DNA was isolated and mean TL was measured by quantitative PCR expressed as relative T (telomere repeat copy number) to S (single copy gene number) ratio (T/S ratio), and a telomere repeat amplification assay was used to assess TA during index presentation with NSTEACS. Primary clinical outcomes consisted of death, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularisation, stroke and significant bleeding recorded at 1 year. TL and TA were divided into tertile groups for analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed. Ordinal regression was performed to evaluate the relationship between TL and TA and traditional cardiovascular risk factors at baseline. Results: 298 patients were recruited in the ICON-1 study of which 153 had PBMC recovered. The mean age was 81.0 ± 4.0 years (64% male). Mean telomere length T/S ratio was 0.47 ± 0.25 and mean TA was 1.52 ± 0.61 units. The primary composite outcome occurred in 44 (28.8%) patients. There was no association between short TL or low TA and incidence of the primary composite outcome (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.50, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.68–3.34, p = 0.32 and HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.52–3.36, p = 0.51 respectively). Conclusion: TL and TA are not found to be associated with the incidence of adverse outcomes in older patients presenting with NSTEACS undergoing invasive care. Clinical trial registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT01933581 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a higher incidence of vitamin D deficiency in older adults. This may play a plausible mechanistic role in the occurrence of increased adverse events after non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). This study investigated whether total vitamin D levels at the time of presentation predicted adverse outcomes in older adults undergoing invasive management of NSTEACS. Of the 629 patients screened, 300 high-risk older adults with NSTEACS managed by an invasive strategy were recruited. Serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D was measured at index presentation. The primary outcome was defined as 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), unplanned repeat revascularisation, significant bleeding or stroke. Mean age was 80.5±4.8 years (61.9% male). Median vitamin D level was 29.5nmol/L [interquartile range IQR 16.0–53.0 nmol/L] and was split equally by the median for analysis forming two groups: high (median vitamin D 53.0 nmol/L [IQR 40.0–75.0]) and low (16.0 nmol/L [11.0–23.0]). The primary outcome occurred in 76 patients (25.9%); 32 (21.9%) in the low group and 44 (29.9%) in the high group, p = 0.12. Multivariable analyses showed no significant difference in the primary composite outcome at 1 year between the low and high group of baseline serum vitamin D (Hazard Ratio 1.20 [95% Confidence Interval 0.72–2.0], p = 0.48). Serum total vitamin D, measured at the time of angiography, was not associated with adverse outcomes at one year in this high-risk older cohort of patients with NSTEACS undergoing invasive management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The prognostic value of admission heart rate ( HR) on long-term mortality in ST-elevation myocardial infarction ( STEMI) remains uncertain in the modern era of primary percutaneous coronary intervention ( PPCI). This study aimed to assess the predictive value of admission HR on long-term mortality following PPCI and the influence of beta-blockers on postdischarge survival. Methods Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on 2310 PPCI-treated STEMI patients at a regional tertiary center between March 2008 and June 2010. Results Patients were classified according to admission HR into either low (≤70 beat per minute [bpm], n = 1015) or high HR group (>70 bpm, n = 1295). At a median follow-up of 559 days, all-cause mortality was 7.0% in the low HR group compared to 12.7% in the high- HR group. In the Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for several confounders, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for all-cause mortality in the high HR group was 1.59 (1.15-2.20; P = 0.005). Every 10-bpm increase in admission HR was associated with 17% increase in all-cause mortality. Beta-blockers on discharge was associated with a reduction in postdischarge mortality only in the high HR group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.49 [0.31-0.77; P = 0.002]), but not in the low HR group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74 [0.37-1.49; P = 0.33]). Conclusions Elevated admission heart rate in PPCI-treated STEMI patients is associated with long-term all-cause mortality. Beta blocker therapy improved postdischarge survival in patients with elevated admission heart rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) is unknown.Objectives: The purpose of this analysis was to compare 1 vs 3 months of DAPT in HBR patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation.Methods: The XIENCE Short DAPT program comprised 3 prospective, multicenter, single-arm studies of HBR patients treated with a short DAPT course followed by aspirin monotherapy after PCI with a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. In this exploratory analysis, patients who received 1-month DAPT (XIENCE 28 USA and 28 Global) were compared with those on 3-month DAPT (XIENCE 90) using propensity score stratification. Ischemic and bleeding outcomes were assessed between 1 and 12 months after index PCI.Results: A total of 3,652 patients were enrolled and 1,392 patients after 1-month DAPT and 1,972 patients after 3-month DAPT were eligible for the analyses. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction was similar between the 2 groups (7.3% vs 7.5%; difference -0.2%; 95% CI: -2.2% to 1.7%; P = 0.41). The key secondary endpoint of BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 2-5 bleeding was lower with 1-month DAPT compared with 3-month DAPT (7.6% vs 10.0%; difference -2.5%; 95% CI: -4.6% to -0.3%; P = 0.012). Major BARC type 3-5 bleeding did not differ at 12 months (3.6% vs 4.7%; difference -1.1%; 95% CI: -2.6% to 0.4%; P = 0.082), but was lower with 1-month DAPT at 90 days (1.0% vs 2.1%; P = 0.015).Conclusions: Among HBR patients undergoing PCI, 1 month of DAPT, compared with 3 months of DAPT, was associated with similar ischemic outcomes and lower bleeding risk. (XIENCE 90 Study; NCT03218787; XIENCE 28 USA Study; NCT03815175; XIENCE 28 Global Study; NCT03355742). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether a regimen of ticagrelor monotherapy attenuates bleeding complications without increasing ischemic risk in patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients undergoing complex PCI from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial.Methods: In the TWILIGHT trial, after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free and adherent patients remained on ticagrelor and were randomly assigned to receive aspirin or placebo for 1 year. Complex PCI was defined as any of the following: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 lesions treated, total stent length >60 mm, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, atherectomy device use, left main PCI, surgical bypass graft or chronic total occlusion as target lesions. Bleeding and ischemic endpoints were evaluated at 1 year after randomization.Results: Among 7,119 patients randomized in the main trial, complex PCI was performed in 2,342 patients. Compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin, ticagrelor plus placebo resulted in significantly lower rates of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (4.2% vs. 7.7%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38 to 0.76). BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding was also significantly reduced (1.1% vs. 2.6%; HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80). There were no significant between-group differences in death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (3.8% vs. 4.9%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.15), nor in stent thrombosis.Conclusions: Among patients undergoing complex PCI who initially completed 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, continuation of ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with lower incidence of bleeding without increasing the risk of ischemic events compared to continuing ticagrelor plus aspirin. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with ticagrelor after a brief period of dual antiplatelet therapy can reduce bleeding without increasing ischemic harm after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The impact of this approach among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) remains unknown.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin among patients with DM undergoing PCI.Methods: This was a pre-specified analysis of the DM cohort in the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial. After 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients were maintained on ticagrelor and randomized to aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The composite ischemic endpoint was all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.Results: Patients with DM comprised 37% (n = 2,620) of the randomized cohort and were characterized by more frequent comorbidities and a higher prevalence of multivessel disease. The incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was 4.5% and 6.7% among patients with DM randomized to ticagrelor plus placebo versus ticagrelor plus aspirin (hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% confidence interval: 0.47 to 0.91; p = 0.012). Ticagrelor monotherapy was not associated with an increase in ischemic events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin (4.6% vs. 5.9%; hazard ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.55 to 1.09; p = 0.14). In the overall trial population, there was no significant interaction between DM status and treatment group for the primary bleeding or ischemic endpoints.Conclusions: Compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy in reducing the risk of clinically relevant bleeding without any increase in ischemic events was consistent among patients with or without DM undergoing PCI. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Aims The aim of this prospective, observational study was to identify predictors of adverse outcome at one year, following invasive care of older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) according to frailty status. Methods Older patients (aged ≥ 75 years), presenting with NSTEACS, undergoing invasive coronary angiography with a view to revascularisation, underwent assessment of frailty, cognition, functional status and quality of life. Participants were categorised as robust, pre-frail or frail using the Fried criteria. The primary outcome comprised a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned revascularisation and major bleeding, at one year. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to derive a multivariate risk score. Results Overall, the composite endpoint was observed in 81 participants (29%). There was a significant difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome in the 3 frailty groups (robust 18.0%, pre-frail 27.5% and frail 39%; p = 0.03; hazard ratio (HR) for frail vs. robust: 2.79, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.28–6.08). Fried frailty classification, age (categorised as ≥85 years), raised Killip class, systolic blood pressure on admission, history of peripheral vascular disease (PVD), problems dressing self and implantation of a bare metal stent were identified as predictors of adverse events at one year, with a C-statistic of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71–0.83). A point-based clinical risk score (FRAIL-HEART) was defined, which had a C-statistic of 0.70 (95% CI 0.63–0.77) and significantly outperformed the GRACE 2 score. Conclusion Frailty is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, following invasive management of older patients with NSTEACS. The derived risk models may enable improved risk stratification in practice. Highlights • Invasive strategy was feasible and was tolerated among older patients presenting with NSTEACS, regardless of frailty status. • There was no increase in procedure related complications and 30-day clinical outcomes between the frailty groups. • At 1-year, frailty was associated with adverse clinical outcomes driven by excess mortality, myocardial infarction and re-hospitalisation. • The point-based FRAIL-HEART risk score may enable improved risk stratification in practice in older NSTEACS patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]