Search

A significant proportion of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is deemed at high bleeding risk. Definition and identification of high bleeding risk patients at the time of PCI is extremely important to inform decision-making regarding antithrombotic treatment selection and optimize the balance between ischemic and bleeding risk. The recent introduction of standardized definitions and tools to identify and treat patients at high bleeding risk is promising to improve evidence-based care in this subgroup of patients.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is one of the most common procedures performed in medicine. However, its net benefit among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is less well established than in the general population. The prevalence of patients suffering from both CAD and CKD is high, and is likely to increase in the coming years. Planning the adequate management of this group of patients is crucial to improve their outcome after PCI. This starts with proper preparation before the procedure, the use of all available means to reduce contrast during the procedure, and the implementation of modern strategies such as radial access and drug-eluting stents. At the end of the procedure, personalized antithrombotic therapy for the patient's specific characteristics is advisable to account for the elevated ischemic and bleeding risk of these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Percutaneous cardiovascular interventions have changed dramatically in recent years, and the impetus given by the rapid implementation of novel techniques and devices have been mirrored by a refinement of antithrombotic strategies for secondary prevention, which have been supported by a significant burden of evidence from clinical studies. In the current manuscript, we aim to provide a comprehensive, yet pragmatic, revision of the current available evidence regarding antithrombotic strategies in the domain of percutaneous cardiovascular interventions. We revise the evidence regarding antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention in coronary artery disease and stent implantation, the complex interrelation between antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with concomitant atrial fibrillation, and finally focus on the novel developments in the secondary prevention after structural heart disease intervention. A special focus on treatment individualization is included to emphasize risk and benefits of each therapeutic strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]