Search

Background: Little is known about the procedural characteristics, case volumes, and mortality rates for early- vs non-early-career interventional cardiologists in the United States., Objectives: This study examined operator-level data for patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between April 2018 and June 2022., Methods: Data were collected from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry, American Board of Internal Medicine certification database, and National Plan and Provider Enumeration System database. Early-career operators were within 5 years of the end of training. Annual case volume, expected mortality and bleeding risk, and observed/predicted mortality and bleeding outcomes were evaluated., Results: A total of 1,451 operators were early career; 1,011 changed their career status during the study; and 6,251 were non-early career. Overall, 514,540 patients were treated by early-career and 2,296,576 patients by non-early-career operators. The median annual case volume per operator was 59 (Q1-Q3: 31-97) for early-career and 57 (Q1-Q3: 28-100) for non-early-career operators. Early-career operators were more likely to treat patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and urgent indications for PCI (both P < 0.001). The median predicted mortality risk was 2.0% (Q1-Q3: 1.5%-2.7%) for early-career and 1.8% (Q1-Q3: 1.2%-2.4%) for non-early-career operators. The median predicted bleeding risk was 4.9% (Q1-Q3: 4.2%-5.7%) for early-career and 4.4% (Q1-Q3: 3.7%-5.3%) for non-early-career operators. After adjustment, an increased risk of mortality (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.05-1.17; P < 0.0001) and bleeding (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.05-1.12; P < 0.0001) were associated with early-career status., Conclusions: Early-career operators are caring for patients with more acute presentations and higher predicted risk of mortality and bleeding compared with more experienced colleagues, with modestly worse outcomes. These data should inform institutional practices to support the development of early-career proceduralists., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Funding was provided by the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Dr Rymer has received research funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novo Nordisk, Chiesi, Abiomed, and Pfizer. Dr Damluji has received research funding from the Pepper Scholars Program of the Johns Hopkins University Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center funded by the National Institute on Aging P30-AG021334; and has received a mentored patient-oriented research career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute K23-HL153771-01. Dr Shah has received grant funding from the VA Office of Research and Development and National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and has served on the advisory board for Philips Volcano. Dr Nanna has received research support from the American College of Cardiology Foundation supported by the George F. and Ann Harris Bellows Foundation, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the Yale Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (P30AG021342), and the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health from R03AG074067 (GEMSSTAR award); and has served as a consultant for Heartflow, Inc and Merck. Dr Kearney has performed consulting for and received honoraria from Abbott, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Teleflex, and Philip. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Aims: Prior trials have demonstrated that intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results in less frequent target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) compared with standard angiographic guidance. The uptake and associated outcomes of IVI-guided PCI in contemporary clinical practice in the USA remain unclear. Accordingly, temporal trends and comparative outcomes of IVI-guided PCI relative to PCI with angiographic guidance alone were examined in a broad, unselected population of Medicare beneficiaries., Methods and Results: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiary data from 1 January 2013, through 31 December 2019 to evaluate temporal trends and comparative outcomes of IVI-guided PCI as compared with PCI with angiography guidance alone in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The primary outcomes were 1 year mortality and MACE, defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat PCI, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Secondary outcomes were MI or repeat PCI at 1 year. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted association between IVI guidance and outcomes. Falsification endpoints (hospitalized pneumonia and hip fracture) were used to assess for potential unmeasured confounding. The study population included 1 189 470 patients undergoing PCI (38.0% female, 89.8% White, 65.1% with MI). Overall, IVI was used in 10.5% of the PCIs, increasing from 9.5% in 2013% to 15.4% in 2019. Operator IVI use was variable, with the median operator use of IVI 3.92% (interquartile range 0.36%-12.82%). IVI use during PCI was associated with lower adjusted rates of 1 year mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-0.98], MI (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99), repeat PCI (aHR 0.74, 95% CI 0.73-0.75), and MACE (aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.84-0.86). There was no association with the falsification endpoint of hospitalized pneumonia (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99-1.04) or hip fracture (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.10)., Conclusion: Among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing PCI, use of IVI has increased over the previous decade but remains relatively infrequent. IVI-guided PCI was associated with lower risk-adjusted mortality, acute MI, repeat PCI, and MACE., (© 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.)

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

Background: Intracoronary imaging modalities, including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT), provide valuable supplemental data unavailable on coronary angiography (CA) and have shown to improve clinical outcomes. We sought to compare the clinical efficacy of IVUS, OCT, and conventional CA-guided percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI)., Methods: Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials were performed to compare clinical outcomes of PCI performed with IVUS, OCT, or CA alone., Results: A total of 28 trials comprising 12,895 patients were included. IVUS when compared with CA alone was associated with a significantly reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (risk ratio: [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval: [CI] 0.63-0.88), cardiac death (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43-0.94), target lesion revascularization (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.57-0.80), and target vessel revascularization (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50-0.81). No differences in comparative clinical efficacy were found between IVUS and OCT. Rank probability analysis bestowed the highest probability to IVUS in ranking as the best imaging modality for all studied outcomes except for all-cause mortality., Conclusion: Compared with CA, the use of IVUS in PCI guidance provides significant benefit in reducing MACE, cardiac death, and revascularization. OCT had similar outcomes to IVUS, but more dedicated studies are needed to confirm the superiority of OCT over CA., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

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.

Background: The optimal strategy to prevent no-reflow in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown., Aims: We aimed to examine the effect of thrombectomy on the outcome of no-reflow in key subgroups and the adverse clinical outcomes associated with no-reflow., Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of the TOTAL Trial, a randomised trial of 10,732 patients comparing thrombectomy versus PCI alone. This analysis utilised the angiographic data of 1,800 randomly selected patients., Results: No-reflow was diagnosed in 196 of 1,800 eligible patients (10.9%). No-reflow occurred in 95/891 (10.7%) patients randomised to thrombectomy compared with 101/909 (11.1%) in the PCI-alone arm (odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.28; p-value=0.76). In the subgroup of patients who underwent direct stenting, those randomised to thrombectomy compared with PCI alone experienced less no-reflow (19/371 [5.1%] vs 21/216 [9.7%], OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.96). In patients who did not undergo direct stenting, there was no difference between the groups (64/504 [12.7%] vs 75/686 [10.9%)], OR 1.18, 95% CI: 0.82-1.69; interaction p-value=0.02). No-reflow patients had a significantly increased risk of experiencing the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or NYHA Class IV heart failure) at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio 1.70, 95% CI: 1.13-2.56; p-value=0.01)., Conclusions: In patients with STEMI treated by PCI, thrombectomy did not reduce no-reflow in all patients but may be synergistic with direct stenting. No-reflow is associated with increased adverse clinical outcomes.

The outcomes of chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention have considerably improved during the last decade with continued emphasis on improving procedural safety. Vascular access site bleeding remains one of the most frequent complications. Several procedural strategies have been implemented to reduce the rate of vascular access site complications. This state-of-the-art review summarizes and describes the current evidence on optimal vascular access strategies for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention., Competing Interests: Disclosures Drs Aminian and Dens are consultants for Terumo Corporation. Dr Iglesias is a consultant for Biotronik, Cordis, Medtronic, and Terumo Corporation; has received unrestricted research grants to the institution from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Biosensors, Concept Medical, Philips Volcano, and Terumo Corporation; and has received honoraria/speaker fees for AstraZeneca, Biosensors, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Cordis, Concept Medical, Medalliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Terumo Corporation, and Philips Volcano. Dr Brilakis has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, American Heart Association (associate editor Circulation), Amgen, Asahi Intecc, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, Interventional Medical Device Solutions (IMDS), Medicure, Medtronic, Siemens, Teleflex, and Terumo Corporation; has received research support from Boston Scientific and GE Healthcare; is the owner at Hippocrates LLC; and is a shareholder at MHI Ventures, Cleerly Health, and Stallion Medical. Dr Gasparini reports consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Cordis, Terumo Corporation, Asahi Intecc, IMDS, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Valgimigli reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Terumo Corporation, personal fees from Alvimedica/Carbostent and Implantable Devices, personal fees from Abbott Vascular, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Abiomed, personal fees from CoreFLOW, personal fees from Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Ltd, personal fees from Universität Basel, Deptartment Klinische Forschung, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squib SA, personal fees from Medscape, personal fees from Biotronik, and personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr van Royen received research grants from Philips, Abbott, Biotronik, and Medtronic and personal fees from Abbott, Microport, and Rainmed. Dr van Leeuwen received speaker/consulting services honoraria from Terumo Corporation, Daiichi Sankyo, and Abbott and research grants from AstraZeneca, Top Sector Life Sciences & Health, Terumo Corporation, Top Medical B.V., and Abbott. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Contemporary data comparing the outcomes of transradial access (TRA) vs transfemoral access (TFA) among patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited., Objectives: This study examines in-hospital outcomes and institutional variation among patients with AMI-CS undergoing TRA-PCI vs TFA-PCI., Methods: Patients admitted with AMI-CS from the NCDR CathPCI registry between April 2018 and June 2021 were included. Multivariable logistic regression and inverse probability weighting models were used to assess the association between access site and in-hospital outcomes. A falsification analysis using non-access site-related bleeding was performed., Results: Among 35,944 patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI, 25.6% were performed with TRA. The proportion of TRA-PCI increased over the study period (22.0% in the second quarter of 2018 vs 29.1% in the second quarter of 2021; P-trend <0.001). Significant institutional-level variability in the use of TRA-PCI was also observed: 20.9% of all sites using TRA in <2% of PCIs (low utilization) vs 1.9% of all sites using TRA in >80% of PCIs (high utilization). Patients undergoing TRA-PCI had a significantly lower adjusted incidence of major bleeding (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.76), mortality (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.69-0.78), vascular complications (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54-0.84), and new dialysis (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77-0.97). There was no difference in non-access site related bleeding (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.84-1.03). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar benefit with TRA-PCI among patients without arterial cross-over. There were no significant interactions observed between TRA-PCI with mechanical circulatory support and in-hospital outcomes., Conclusions: In this large nationwide contemporary analysis of patients with AMI-CS, about quarter of PCIs were performed via TRA with wide variability across US institutions. TRA-PCI was associated with significantly lower incidence of in-hospital major bleeding, mortality, vascular complications, and new dialysis. This benefit was observed irrespective of mechanical circulatory support use., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The American College of Cardiology Foundation’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) supported this research. Dr Virani has received grant support from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and Tahir and Jooma Family; and has received an honorarium from the American College of Cardiology. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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

Background: Same day discharge (SDD) following chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has received limited study., Methods: We evaluated the clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics of patients discharged the same day versus those kept for overnight observation in the Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention (PROGRESS-CTO, NCT02061436)., Results: Of the 7181 patients who underwent CTO PCI, 943 (13%) had SDD. The SDD rate increased from 3% in 2015 to 21% in 2022. Patients with SDD were less likely to have a history of heart failure (21% vs. 26%, p = 0.005), chronic lung disease (10% vs. 15%, p = 0.001), or anemia (12% vs. 19%, p < 0.001). Technical success (87% vs. 88%, p = 0.289) was similar, but in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (0.0% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.041) were lower in SDD. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, prior myocardial infarction odds ratio (OR): 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.87, p = 0.001), chronic lung disease OR: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.47-0.88, p = 0.006), and increasing procedure time OR: 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95, p < 0.001, per 10-min increase) were associated with overnight observation, while radial-only access OR: 2.45 (95% CI: 2.03-2.96, p < 0.001) had the strongest association with SDD. In the SDD, 2 (0.4%) of 514 patients were readmitted, due to retroperitoneal bleeding (n = 1) and ischemic stroke (n = 1)., Conclusion: The overall frequency of SDD after CTO PCI was 13% and has been increasing over time. SDD is feasible in select patients following CTO PCI, and radial-only access had the strongest association with SDD., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The clinical course of patients with a previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) presenting with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is not well defined. We aimed to compare the management and outcomes of patients with and without previous CABG who present with an NSTEMI. Patients hospitalized with an NSTEMI between 2002 and 2018 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. The baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients with and without a previous CABG were compared. The outcomes included the rates of invasive procedures (defined as coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or CABG), and its individual components, and in-hospital mortality. A total of 1,445,545 cases of NSTEMI were found, of which 133,691 (9.3%) had a previous CABG. Patients with a previous CABG were older (72.4 vs 68.6 years, p <0.001), more likely men (68.8% vs 56.9%, p <0.001), and of White race (79.7% vs 74.8%, p <0.001). The previous CABG cohort had lower rates of invasive procedures (50.4% vs 65.6%, p <0.001), PCI (23.7% vs 32.0%, p <0.001), or CABG (1.2% vs 10.6%; p <0.001) in the unmatched analysis. The results were consistent in the propensity score-matched analysis with the previous CABG group less likely to receive any invasive procedures (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47 to 0.49), including coronary angiography (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.55), PCI (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.67), or repeat CABG (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.12). Moreover, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in the previous CABG group (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.21). In the subset of patients who were revascularized in both groups, this excess mortality was no longer observed (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03). In conclusion, a previous CABG in patients who present with NSTEMI is associated with lower rates of invasive procedures and revascularization and higher in-hospital mortality than patients without a previous CABG., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Randomized trials have compared percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing nonemergent revascularization. However, there is a paucity of real-world contemporary observational studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and CABG., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of CABG versus PCI in patients with left main coronary disease., Methods: Clinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada, were linked to obtain records of all patients with angiographic evidence of left main coronary artery disease (≥50% stenosis) treated with either isolated CABG or PCI from 2008 to 2020. Emergent, cardiogenic shock, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients were excluded. Baseline characteristics of patients were compared and 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. Late mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were compared between the matched groups using a Cox proportional hazard model., Results: After exclusions, 1,299 and 21,287 patients underwent PCI and CABG, respectively. Prior to matching, PCI patients were older (age 75.2 vs 68.0 years) and more likely to be women (34.6% vs 20.1%), although they had less CAD burden. Propensity score matching on 25 baseline covariates yielded 1,128 well-matched pairs. There was no difference in early mortality between PCI and CABG (5.5% vs 3.9%; P = 0.075). Over 7-year follow-up, all-cause mortality (53.6% vs 35.2%; HR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.42-1.87; P < 0.001) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (66.8% vs 48.6%; HR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.57-2.00) were significantly higher with PCI than CABG., Conclusions: CABG was the most common revascularization strategy in this real-world registry. Patients undergoing PCI were much older and of higher risk at baseline. After matching, there was no difference in early mortality but improved late survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events with CABG., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. This study also received funding from a Foundation grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant FDN 148446) and the Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research. The authors acknowledge that the clinical registry data used in this analysis are from participating hospitals through CorHealth Ontario, which serves as an advisory body to the Ontario Ministry of Health, is funded by the MOH, and is dedicated to improving the quality, efficiency, access, and equity in the delivery of the continuum of adult cardiac and stroke care in Ontario, Canada. Dr Lee has served as the Ted Rogers Chair in Heart Function Outcomes, University Health Network, University of Toronto. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

In patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), total occlusion of the culprit coronary artery (OCA) is not uncommon. We sought to determine the frequency and clinical impact of OCA at presentation in a large population of patients presenting with NSTEMI and who underwent systematic early invasive management. We performed a post hoc analysis of the TAO (Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome with Otamixaban) randomized trial, which included patients with NSTEMI with systematic coronary angiography within 72 hours. We compared the baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients according to whether the culprit vessel was occluded (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade [TFG] 0 to 1) or patent (TFG 2 to 3) at presentation. A total of 7,473 patients with NSTEMI with only 1 culprit lesion identified were enrolled, of whom 1,702 patients had OCA (22.8%). In the OCA group, coronary angiography was performed earlier (18 ± 15 vs 20 ± 16 hours, p <0.01), the culprit lesion was less likely to be the left anterior descending artery (26.5% vs 41.4%, p <0.001) but with more frequent angiographic thrombus (49.9% vs 22.7%, p <0.01). Culprit artery percutaneous coronary intervention during the index procedure was also more frequent (88.5% vs 78.1%, p <0.001) but with a lower rate of TFG grade 3 after the procedure and higher subsequent peak troponin I levels (8.3 ± 13.6 µg/L vs 5.6 ± 11.9 µg/L, p <0.001). At day 7, patients with OCA had higher mortality, and this persisted after adjustment on gender, Grace risk score, cardiovascular risk factors, and culprit vessel location (0.9% vs 0.4%, p = 0.02; adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 5.29, p = 0.01). The absolute difference of mortality was maintained through 30 days: 1.2% versus 0.8%, p = 0.13; OR: 1.72, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.05, but mortality rates were similar by 180 days: 1.5% versus 1.6%, p = 0.8, adjusted OR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.80, p = 0.66. In conclusion, a significant proportion of patients with NSTEMI have a totally occluded culprit vessel at presentation. These patients are at higher risk of early mortality but not at 6 months., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal duration of hemostatic compression post transradial access is controversial. Longer duration increases the risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO) while shorter duration increases the risk of access site bleeding or hematoma. As such, a target of 2 hours is typically used. Whether a shorter or longer duration is better is not known., Methods: A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials of different duration (<90 minutes, 90 minutes, 2 hours, and 2-4 hours) of hemostasis banding. The efficacy outcome was RAO, primary safety outcome was access site hematoma, and secondary safety outcome was access site rebleeding. Primary analysis compared the effect of various duration in reference to the 2 hours duration using a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis., Results: Of the 10 randomized clinical trials included with 4911 patients, when compared to the 2-hour reference duration, there was a significantly higher risk of access site hematoma with 90 minutes (odds ratio, 2.39 [95% CI, 1.40-4.06]) and <90 minutes (odds ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 1.79-7.29]) but not with the 2 to 4 hours duration. When compared with the 2-hour reference, there was no significant difference in access site rebleeding or RAO with shorter or longer duration but the point estimates favored longer duration for access site rebleeding and shorter duration for RAO. Duration of <90 minutes and 90 minutes ranked 1 and duration of 2 hours ranked 2 as the most efficacious duration whereas duration of 2 hours ranked 1 and 2 to 4 hours ranked 2 as the safest duration., Conclusions: In patients undergoing transradial access for coronary angiography or intervention, a hemostasis duration of 2 hours offers the best balance for efficacy (prevention of RAO) and safety (prevention of access site hematoma/rebleeding).

Background: Appropriate use criteria (AUC) have been developed to promote the rational use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among clinicians and to provide benchmarking feedback to hospitals. The original AUC were published in 2012 and subsequently updated in 2017 to reflect emerging, contemporary evidence however the degree to which the updated guidance re-classifies PCI appropriateness is unknown., Methods: Elective PCI cases from March 1, 2018 until June 30, 2021 were identified from within the NCDR CathPCI database. PCI cases were classified as 'appropriate,' 'uncertain' or 'inappropriate' under 2012 AUC and 'appropriate,' 'may be appropriate' or 'rarely appropriate' under 2017 AUC; those with missing data elements were termed 'not mappable.' Groups that 'remained appropriate' (appropriate in both 2012 and 2017), 'became non-appropriate' ('appropriate' in 2012 but became either 'may be appropriate' or 'rarely appropriate in 2017) and 'became appropriate' ('appropriate' in 2017 but were 'uncertain' or 'inappropriate' in 2012) were descriptively compared. Concordance was assessed by calculation of Cohen's Kappa., Results: A total of 245,196 patients underwent elective PCI across 1669 centers. By 2012 AUC, 44% were classified 'appropriate,' 28% were 'uncertain' and 16% were 'inappropriate' compared with 2017 AUC which considered 34% 'appropriate', 56% may be 'appropriate' and 4% 'rarely appropriate'. Overall fair agreement was observed with a Kappa statistic of 0.40 (95%CI 0.396-0.403). Compared with PCI that 'remained appropriate' under the 2017 AUC, PCI that 'became non-appropriate' in 2017 were more likely to be asymptomatic, less likely to be on anti-anginals and less likely to have complex lesions. Compared with PCI that 'became non-appropriate', PCI that 'became appropriate' had a higher proportion of atypical and non-anginal symptoms and were less likely to have had positive functional tests. Procedural related outcomes were similar across all groups. A total of 29 429 PCI (12.0%) were not mappable by 2012 AUC while 16 077 (6.6%) were not mappable by 2017 AUC., Conclusions: In this contemporary analysis of patients undergoing PCI in the United States, only fair agreement between the 2012 and updated 2017 AUC was observed. While some of this reflects the intention of the updated guidance, the large proportion that were considered 'maybe appropriate' or who 'became non-appropriate' reflect the difficulties of documenting and implementing contemporary AUC guidance., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors are solely responsible for the design and conduct of this study, all study analyses, the drafting and editing of the paper and its final contents. AJN, Consulting honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and Amgen. TI: Nil. SVR: Nil. LAK: Nil. DW: Nil. TYW: research grants provided to the Duke Clinical Research Institute from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cyrolife, Novartis, Pfizer, Portola, and Regeneron. She has also received consulting honoraria from Grifols and Gilead., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

For 20 years, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), consisting of the combination of aspirin and a platelet P2Y 12 receptor inhibitor, has been the gold standard of antithrombotic pharmacology after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In the past 5 years, several investigations have challenged this paradigm by testing the efficacy and safety of P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy (that is, without aspirin) following a short course of DAPT. Collectively, these studies suggested a reduction in the risk of major bleeding and no significant increase in thrombotic or ischaemic events compared with guideline-recommended DAPT. Current recommendations are evolving to inform clinical practice on the ideal candidates for P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy after PCI. Generalizing the results of studies of P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy requires a thorough understanding of their design, populations, interventions, comparators and results. In this Review, we provide an up-to-date overview on the use of P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy after PCI, including supporting pharmacodynamic and clinical evidence, practical recommendations and future directions., (© 2022. Springer Nature Limited.)

Importance: In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether complete revascularization also improves angina-related health status is unknown., Objective: To determine whether complete revascularization improves angina status in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD., Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a randomized, multinational, open label trial of patient-reported outcomes took place in 140 primary PCI centers in 31 countries. Patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized between February 1, 2013, and March 6, 2017. Analysis took place between July 2021 and December 2021., Interventions: Following PCI of the culprit lesion, patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to receive either complete revascularization with additional PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or to no further revascularization., Main Outcomes and Measures: Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency (SAQ-AF) score (range, 0 [daily angina] to 100 [no angina]) and the proportion of angina-free individuals by study end., Results: Of 4041 patients, 2016 were randomized to complete revascularization and 2025 to culprit lesion-only PCI. The mean (SD) age of patients was 62 (10.7) years, and 3225 (80%) were male. The mean (SD) SAQ-AF score increased from 87.1 (17.8) points at baseline to 97.1 (9.7) points at a median follow-up of 3 years in the complete revascularization group (score change, 9.9 [95% CI, 9.0-10.8]; P < .001) compared with an increase of 87.2 (18.4) to 96.3 (10.9) points (score change, 8.9 [95% CI, 8.0-9.8]; P < .001) in the culprit lesion-only group (between-group difference, 0.97 points [95% CI, 0.27-1.67]; P = .006). Overall, 1457 patients (87.5%) were free of angina (SAQ-AF score, 100) in the complete revascularization group compared with 1376 patients (84.3%) in the culprit lesion-only group (absolute difference, 3.2% [95% CI, 0.7%-5.7%]; P = .01). This benefit was observed mainly in patients with nonculprit lesion stenosis severity of 80% or more (absolute difference, 4.7%; interaction P = .02)., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization resulted in a slightly greater proportion of patients being angina-free compared with a culprit lesion-only strategy. This modest incremental improvement in health status is in addition to the established benefit of complete revascularization in reducing cardiovascular events.

Background: In some randomized clinical trials, transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) was associated with lower mortality in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing invasive management. We analyzed the effects of TRA versus TFA across multicenter randomized clinical trials and whether these associations are modified by patient or procedural characteristics., Methods: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of multicenter randomized clinical trials comparing TRA with TFA among patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the co-primary outcome was major bleeding at 30 days. The primary analysis was conducted by 1-stage mixed-effects models on the basis of the intention-to-treat cohort. The effect of access site on mortality and major bleeding was assessed further by multivariable analysis. The relationship among access site, bleeding, and mortality was investigated by natural effect model mediation analysis with multivariable adjustment., Results: A total of 21 600 patients (10 775 TRA, 10 825 TFA) from 7 randomized clinical trials were included. The median age was 63.9 years, 31.9% were women, 95% presented with acute coronary syndrome, and 75.2% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. All-cause mortality (1.6% versus 2.1%; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63-0.95]; P =0.012) and major bleeding (1.5% versus 2.7%; odds ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.45-0.67]; P <0.001) were lower with TRA. Subgroup analyses for mortality showed consistent results, except for baseline hemoglobin level ( P interaction =0.003), indicating that the benefit of TRA was substantial in patients with moderate or severe anemia, whereas it was not significant in patients with milder or no baseline anemia. After adjustment, TRA remained associated with 24% and 51% relative risk reduction of all-cause mortality and major bleeding, respectively. A mediation analysis showed that the benefit of TRA on mortality was only partially driven by major bleeding prevention and ancillary mechanisms are required to fully explain the causal association., Conclusions: TRA is associated with lower all-cause mortality and major bleeding at 30 days compared with TFA. The effect on mortality was driven by patients with anemia. The reduction in major bleeding only partially explains the mortality benefit., Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42018109664.

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

Aims: The relative safety and efficacy of de-escalation, extended duration (ED) (&gt;12-months), and standard dual antiplatelet therapy for 12-months (DAPT-12) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial., Methods and Results: Online databases were queried to identify relevant randomized control trials (RCTs). ED-DAPT, high-potency (HP) DAPT, shorter duration (SD) DAPT, and low-dose (LD) DAPT were compared with DAPT-12. A trial sequential, bivariate, influential, and frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to determine the pooled estimates. A total of 30 RCTs comprising 81 208 (40 839 experimental, 40 369 control arm) patients with CAD were included in the quantitative analysis. On NMA, compared with DAPT-12, all types of de-escalation, HP-DAPT-12, and ED-DAPT strategies had a statistically non-significant difference in the incidence of MACE at a median follow-up of 1-year. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of stroke, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and all-cause mortality between DAPT-12 and all other strategies. The network estimates showed a significantly lower incidence of major bleeding with DAPT for 3-months followed by P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.84), while a higher risk of bleeding with HP-DAPT for 12 months (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.16-2.06). The net clinical benefit and rankograms also favoured DAPT-3 (P2Y12) and discouraged the use of HP-DAPT-12 and ED-DAPT. A subgroup analysis of 19 RCTs restricted to patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) mirrored the findings of pooled analysis. A sensitivity analysis revealed no influence of any individual study or individual strategy on net ischemic estimates. The trial sequential analysis (TSA) illustrated a consistently non-significant difference at the interim analysis of trials, reaching the futility area for MACE, while the cumulative Z-values line surpassed the monitoring boundary as well as the required information size for major bleeding favouring de-escalation strategy., Conclusion: DAPT for three months followed by ticagrelor-only and use of aspirin + clopidogrel after a short period of high potency DAPT appears to be a safe strategy for treating post-PCI patients. However, given the methodological limitations and inclusion of a small number of trials in novel de-escalation strategies, these findings need validation by future large scale RCTs., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

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

Background: Optimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) is not fully defined. We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of short-term DAPT (S-DAPT) with longer duration DAPT (L-DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug eluting stents (DES) in patients at HBR., Methods: We searched for studies comparing S-DAPT (≤3 months) followed by aspirin or P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy against L-DAPT (6-12 months) after PCI in HBR patients. Primary end points of interest were major bleeding and myocardial infarction (MI). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate odds ratios with 95% CIs., Results: Six randomized trials and 3 propensity-matched studies (n = 16,848) were included in the primary analysis. Compared with L-DAPT (n = 8,422), major bleeding was lower with S-DAPT (n = 8,426) [OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.89] whereas MI did not differ significantly between the 2 groups [1.16; 0.94-1.44]. There were no significant differences in risks of death, stroke or stent thrombosis (ST) between S-DAPT and L-DAPT groups. These findings were consistent when propensity-matched studies were analysed separately. Finally, there was a numerically higher, albeit statistically non-significant, ST in the S-DAPT arm of patients without an indication for OAC [1.98; 0.86-4.58]., Conclusions: Among HBR patients undergoing current generation DES implantation, S-DAPT reduces bleeding without an increased risk of death or MI compared with L-DAPT. More research is needed to (1) evaluate risks of late ST after 1 to 3 months DAPT among patients with high ischemic and bleeding risks, (2) defining the SAPT of choice after 1 to 3 months DAPT., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess whether contrast media type is associated with outcomes in veterans undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Background: There is uncertainty about the impact of iso-osmolar contrast medium (IOCM) versus low-osmolar contrast medium (LOCM) on acute kidney injury (AKI) and other major adverse renal or cardiovascular events (MARCE) after PCI. We assessed the association between contrast media type and MARCE in patients who underwent PCI within the Veterans Administration Healthcare System., Methods: We reviewed PCIs performed between 2009 and 2019 using data from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program. The primary endpoint was MARCE, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause death, AKI, and dialysis onset at 30 days., Results: The analysis cohort consisted of 50,389 patients of whom 25,555 received LOCM and 24,834 received IOCM. There was significant variation in contrast type across sites. After adjustment for comorbidities, no significant association between contrast media type and MARCE was observed in both site-unadjusted (odds ratio [OR] for IOCM: 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.08; p = 0.97) and site-adjusted (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.95-1.18; p = 0.30) analyses. Similar results were obtained when contrast volume was imputed or the data was subset to individuals with available contrast volume., Conclusion: In a large cohort of veterans undergoing PCI, we found considerable site variation in the type of contrast media used but no significant association between contrast media type and the incidence of MARCE, both before and after adjustment for the site., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices can be used in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our objective was to describe trends and outcomes of prophylactic MCS use in elective PCI for patients with stable coronary artery disease in the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry's CathPCI registry., Methods: Among 2 108 715 consecutive patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing elective PCI in the CathPCI registry between 2009 and 2018, we examined patterns of prophylactic use of MCS. Propensity score models with inverse probability of treatment weighting compared effectiveness (in-hospital death, cardiogenic shock, or new heart failure) and safety (stroke, tamponade, major bleeding, or vascular complication requiring treatment) between patients treated with intra-aortic balloon pump versus other MCS (Impella or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation)., Results: Overall, 6905 (0.3%) patients underwent elective PCI with prophylactic MCS. MCS use trended up from 0.2% of elective PCIs in 2009 to 0.6% in 2018 ( P <0.0001), driven by other MCS ( P <0.0001), whereas intra-aortic balloon pump use remained low and constant ( P =0.12). In-hospital major adverse cardiac events and cardiovascular complications occurred in 7.1% and 18.8% of elective PCI patients with prophylactic MCS use and 0.5% and 2.3% of patients without prophylactic MCS use. Intra-aortic balloon pump use was associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiac events (9.6% versus 6.0%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.32-1.91]) but lower risk of complications (18.2% versus 19.1%, adjusted odds ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.77-0.99]) than use of other MCS., Conclusions: The use of prophylactic MCS has increased over time for elective PCI in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Intra-aortic balloon pump was associated with higher major adverse cardiac events but lower risk of procedural complications compared with other MCS.

Background: Prior studies of radial access for cardiac catheterization have focused on early adopters of the technique, and some have described a risk/treatment paradox of low radial access use among high bleeding risk patients. This study aimed to determine (1) trends in radial access use over time, (2) if increasing use of radial access is driven by new invasive and interventional cardiologists (operators) or existing operators changing their practice, and (3) if increasing radial rates are associated with lower bleeding rates and elimination of the risk/treatment paradox., Methods: In this cross-sectional study using data from the Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program, we calculated radial access rates and risk-adjusted postprocedural bleeding rates of patients undergoing diagnostic angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 2011 and 2018 in Veterans Affairs hospitals. We used separate bleeding risk models for diagnostic angiography and PCI and assessed temporal trends with the Kendall Tau-b test., Results: Among 253 179 diagnostic angiograms and 93 614 PCIs, radial access rates increased over time for both diagnostic (17.5%-60.4%; P <0.01)) and PCI procedures (14.0%-51.8%; P <0.01). Existing operators and new operators increased their use at similar rates, but new operators entered practice with higher baseline rates. Nearly all operators used radial access at least once in 2018. Overall adjusted rates of bleeding declined, a trend that was significant for diagnostic angiography (2.4%-1.4%, P =0.02) but not PCI (3.4%-2.5%, P =0.20). Femoral access patients had a higher predicted risk for bleeding., Conclusions: A steady rise in radial access for diagnostic angiography and PCI was driven by increasing use among existing operators and high use by new operators. While this was associated with decreasing bleeding rates, a risk/treatment paradox for access site selection persists; patients at higher bleeding risk were still more likely to receive femoral access.

Background: The optimal access site for cardiac catheterization in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) continues to be debated., Methods: We performed a random effects frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis of 4 randomized trials and 18 observational studies, including 60,192 patients with prior CABG (27,236 in the radial group; 32,956 in the femoral group) that underwent cardiac catheterization. Outcomes included (1) access-site complications, (2) crossover to a different vascular access, (3) procedure time, and (4) contrast volume. Mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI for binary outcomes., Results: Among randomized trials, crossover (OR: 7.63; 95% CI: 2.04, 28.51; p = 0.003) was higher in the radial group, while access site complications (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.34, 2.87; p = 0.94) and contrast volume (MD: 15.08; 95% CI: -10.19, 40.35; p = 0.24) were similar. Among observational studies, crossover rates were higher (OR: 5.09; 95% CI: 2.43, 10.65; p < 0.001), while access site complication rates (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.89; p = 0.02) and contrast volume (MD: -7.52; 95% CI: -13.14, -1.90 ml; p = 0.009) were lower in the radial group. Bayesian analysis suggested that the odds of a difference existing between radial and femoral are small for all endpoints except crossover to another access site., Conclusion: In a frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis of patients with prior CABG undergoing coronary catheterization, radial access was associated with lower incidence of vascular access complications and lower contrast volume but also higher crossover rate., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

For many years, bleeding has been perceived as an unavoidable consequence of strategies aimed at reducing thrombotic complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the paradigm has now shifted towards bleeding being recognized as a prognostically unfavourable event to the same extent as having a new or recurrent ischaemic or thrombotic complication. As such, in parallel with progress in device and drug development for PCI, there is clinical interest in developing strategies that maximize not only the efficacy but also the safety (for example, by minimizing bleeding) of any antithrombotic treatment or procedural aspect before, during or after PCI. In this Review, we discuss contemporary data and aspects of bleeding avoidance strategies in PCI, including risk stratification, timing of revascularization, pretreatment with antiplatelet agents, selection of vascular access, choice of coronary stents and antithrombotic treatment regimens., (© 2021. Springer Nature Limited.)

Aim: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

Background: Bleeding is a common and costly complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) are used paradoxically less in patients at high-risk of bleeding: "bleeding risk-treatment paradox" (RTP). We determined whether hospitals and physicians, who do not align BAS to PCI patients' bleeding risk (ie, exhibit a RTP) have higher bleeding rates., Methods: We examined 28,005 PCIs from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry for 7 hospitals comprising BJC HealthCare. BAS included transradial intervention, bivalirudin, and vascular closure devices. Patients' predicted bleeding risk was based on National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI bleeding model and categorized as low (<2.0%), moderate (2.0%-6.4%), or high (≥6.5%) risk tertiles. BAS use was considered risk-concordant if: at least 1 BAS was used for moderate risk; 2 BAS were used for high risk and bivalirudin or vascular closure devices were not used for low risk. Absence of risk-concordant BAS use was defined as RTP. We analyzed inter-hospital and inter-physician variation in RTP, and the association of RTP with post-PCI bleeding., Results: Amongst 28,005 patients undergoing PCI by 103 physicians at 7 hospitals, RTP was observed in 12,035 (43%) patients. RTP was independently associated with a higher likelihood of bleeding even after adjusting for predicted bleeding risk, mortality risk and potential sources of variation (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.44-1.92, P < .001). A higher prevalence of RTP strongly and independently correlated with worse bleeding rates, both at the physician-level (Wilk's Lambda 0.9502, F-value 17.21, P < .0001) and the hospital-level (Wilk's Lambda 0.9899, F-value 35.68, P < .0001). All the results were similar in a subset of PCIs conducted since 2015 - a period more reflective of the contemporary practice., Conclusions: Bleeding RTP is a strong, independent predictor of bleeding. It exists at the level of physicians and hospitals: those with a higher rate of RTP had worse bleeding rates. These findings not only underscore the importance of recognizing bleeding risk upfront and using BAS in a risk-aligned manner, but also inform and motivate national efforts to reduce PCI-related bleeding., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention is performed by operators with differing experience, technique, and case mix. It is unknown if operator practice patterns impact patient outcomes. We sought to determine if a cluster algorithm can identify distinct profiles of percutaneous coronary intervention operators and if these profiles are associated with patient outcomes., Methods: Operators performing at least 25 annual procedures between 2014 and 2018 were clustered using an agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithm. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared between clusters., Results: We identified 4 practice profiles among 7706 operators performing 2 937 419 procedures. Cluster 1 (n=3345) demonstrated case mix and practice patterns similar to the national median. Cluster 2 (n=1993) treated patients with lower clinical acuity and were less likely to use intracoronary diagnostics, atherectomy, and radial access. Cluster 3 (n=1513) had the lowest case volume, were more likely to work at rural hospitals, and cared for a higher proportion of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Cluster 4 (n=855) had the highest case volume, were most likely to treat patients with high anatomic complexity and use atherectomy, intracoronary diagnostics, and mechanical support. Compared with cluster 1, adjusted in-hospital mortality was similar for cluster 2 (estimated difference, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.10 to 0.04]), higher for cluster 3 (0.14 [0.07-0.22]), and lower for cluster 4 (-0.15 [-0.24 to -0.06])., Conclusions: Distinct percutaneous coronary intervention operator profiles are differentially associated with patient outcomes. A phenotypic approach to physician assessment may provide actionable feedback for quality improvement.

Trans-radial artery access (TRA) for cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention has many advantages over trans-femoral artery access (TFA), but implementation has been slow. The steep learning curve, logistical issues, and radiation exposure have been documented as barriers to implementation. Although many cardiac catheterization laboratories have overcome these barriers, we lack evidence on effective implementation strategies. Our objective is to test a team-based coaching intervention that targets the learning curve and other barriers to increase use of TRA. We use a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial to test a coaching intervention in Department of Veterans Affairs cardiac catheterization laboratories. The coaching intervention comprises team-based didactic instruction with live observation at a TRA-proficient lab, followed by a visit from a cardiologist and catheterization laboratory nurse coaching team. Interview and survey data are collected from participants to test and adapt an implementation science framework known as the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. This study is designed to test the effectiveness of the coaching intervention on TRA implementation, inform changes to the coaching intervention itself, and test and adapt the PARIHS framework in practice. While the benefits of TRA, including increased clinical efficiency, patient comfort, and reduced patient complications, are well understood, the underlying drivers of TRA adoption and sustained practice are not. Findings from this trial can inform future research to facilitate change in the cardiac catheterization laboratory., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was supported by the American College of Cardiology’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry. The National Cardiovascular Data Registry is an initiative of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Dr Waldo has received unrelated investigator-initiated research support from Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems Incorporated, Janssen, Merck Pharmaceuticals, National Institutes of Health, and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development. Dr Yeh has received grants from AstraZeneca; has received consulting fees from Teleflex; and has served on advisory boards for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Fanaroff has received a career development grant and honoraria from the American Heart Association; and has received research funding from Boston Scientific. Dr Wang has received research grants to the Duke Clinical Research Institute from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cryolife, Portola, and Regeneron; and has received consulting honoraria from AstraZeneca. Dr Giri has served on advisory boards for Boston Scientific, Inari Medical, and AstraZeneca; and has received research funds to the institution from Boston Scientific, Recor Medical, and St. Jude Medical. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Patients undergoing early surgery after coronary stent implantation are at increased risk for mortality from ischemic and hemorrhagic complications. The optimal antiplatelet strategy in patients who cannot discontinue dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) before surgery is unclear. Current guidelines, based on surgical and clinical characteristics, provide risk stratification for bridging therapy with intravenous antiplatelet agents, but management is guided primarily by expert opinion. This review summarizes perioperative risk factors to consider before discontinuing DAPT and reviews the data for intravenous bridging therapies. Published reports have included bridging options such as small molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (eptifibatide or tirofiban) and cangrelor, an intravenous P2Y 12 inhibitor. However, optimal management of these complex patients remains unclear in the absence of randomized controlled data, without which an argument can be made both for and against the use of perioperative intravenous bridging therapy after discontinuing oral P2Y 12 inhibitors. Multidisciplinary risk assessment remains a critical component of perioperative care., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This review was investigator initiated and there was no significant source of funding. Dr Nanna has received grant support from Medtronic Vascular, Inc; and has received consulting honorarium from Boston Scientific. Dr Wang has received research grants to the Duke Clinical Research Institute from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Cryolife, Chiesi, Merck, Portola, and Regeneron; and has received consulting honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cryolife, and Novartis. Dr Bhatt has been on the advisory board of Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Level Ex, Medscape Cardiology, MyoKardia, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, and Regado Biosciences; on the board of directors of Boston VA Research Institute, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; has been chair of American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; has been on the following data monitoring committees: Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St Jude Medical, now Abbott), 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), and Population Health Research Institute; has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org, Vice-Chair, ACC Accreditation Committee), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the 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), 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, 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); other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); has received research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, MyoKardia, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Synaptic, and The Medicines Company; has received royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwald’s Heart Disease); has been Site Co-Investigator at Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, St Jude Medical (now Abbott), and Svelte; has been trustee at the American College of Cardiology; and provided unfunded research to FlowCo, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Takeda. Dr Angiolillo has received payment as an individual for the following: 1) consulting fee or honorarium 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; and 2) participation in review activities from CeloNova and St Jude Medical; and has received institutional payments for grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Banerjee has received honoraria from Medtronic, Cordis, Livmor, and AngioSafe; and has received research grants (institutional) from Boston Scientific Corporation and Chiesi. Dr Rao has received institutional research funding from Bayer, Svelte, and Shockwave Medical. Dr Ohman has received research funding from Abiomed and Chiesi; and has received consulting honoraria from Cara Therapeutics, Cytokinetics, Imbria Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and XyloCor Therapeutics. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

[Figure: see text].

Objectives: The aims of this study were to describe trends and hospital variation in same-day discharge following elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to evaluate the association between trends in same-day discharge and patient outcomes., Background: Insights on contemporary use of same-day discharge following elective PCI are limited., Methods: In a sequential cross-sectional analysis of 819,091 patients undergoing elective PCI at 1,716 hospitals in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 1, 2009, to December 31, 2017, overall and hospital-level trends in same-day discharge were assessed. Among the 212,369 patients who linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data, the association between same-day discharge and 30-day mortality and rehospitalization was assessed., Results: A total of 114,461 patients (14.0%) were discharged the same day as PCI. The proportion of patients with same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in the third quarter of 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017. From 2009 to 2017, the rate of same-day discharge increased from 4.3% to 19.5% for femoral-access PCI and from 9.9% to 39.7% for radial-access PCI. Hospital-level variation in the use of same-day discharge persisted throughout (median odds ratio adjusted for year and radial access: 4.15). Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change over time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly for same-day discharge (P for interaction <0.001)., Conclusions: In the past decade, a large increase in the use of same-day discharge following elective PCI was not associated with worse 30-day mortality or rehospitalization. Hospital-level variation in same-day discharge may represent an opportunity to reduce costs without compromising patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was supported by the American College of Cardiology’s NCDR. The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Representatives of the CathPCI Registry research and publications committee approved the final manuscript. Dr Bradley serves as an associate editor for JAMA Network Open. Dr Hess is supported by VA Career Development Award HX002621 from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services and Research Development Service and Career Development Award 19CDA347670126 from the American Heart Association. Dr Ho is supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services and Research Development Service, and the University of Colorado School of Medicine; has a research agreement with Bristol Myers Squibb through the University of Colorado; and serves as the deputy editor for Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. Dr Maddox has received current grant funding from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (grant 1U24TR002306-01: A National Center for Digital Health Informatics Innovation); is a consultant for Creative Educational Concepts and Atheneum Partners; has received honoraria and/or expense reimbursement in the past 3 years from New York Presbyterian (September 2017), Westchester Medical Center (October 2017), Sentara Heart Hospital (December 2018), the Henry Ford health system (March 2019), and the University of California-San Diego (January 2020); is currently employed as a cardiologist and the executive director of the Healthcare Innovation Lab at BJC HealthCare/Washington University School of Medicine, in which capacity he is an adviser to Myia Labs, for which his employer receives equity compensation in the company, but he receives no individual compensation from the company; and is a compensated director for a New Mexico–based foundation, the J.F. Maddox Foundation. Dr Brilakis has received consulting and speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, the American Heart Association (associate editor, Circulation), Amgen, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, the Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (board of directors), CSI, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, InfraRedx, Medtronic, Siemens, and Teleflex; has received research support from Regeneron and Siemens; and is a shareholder in MHI Ventures. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

[Figure: see text].

Background: More effective and progressively safer generations of drug-elut-ing stents (DES) have replaced bare metal stents (BMS) in rou-tine clinical practice. However, patients considered to be at high bleeding risk (HBR) have traditionally been underrepresented in pivotal DES trials., Aims: The aim of this study was to model the safety and effectiveness of drug-coated stents (DCS) versus BMS in HBR patients according to the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) criteria., Methods: Participants from the LEADERS FREE (LF) and LEADERS FREE II (LFII) studies were pooled into one data set. Participants were treated with 30 days of DAPT. The primary safety (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) and effectiveness (target lesion revascularisation) endpoints were compared between DCS and BMS in the subgroup of patients satisfying the ARC-HBR definition using propensity-score modelling., Results: From the 3,635 participants included in the combined LF and LFII data set, 2,898 (79.7%) satisfied the ARC-HBR criteria (DCS: 1,923; BMS: 975). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 184 (9.8%) and in 132 (13.8%) participants in the DCS and BMS groups, respectively (adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.57-0.91; p=0.006). The risk of the primary effectiveness endpoint was also significantly lower with DCS (6.2%) versus BMS (8.8%) (adjusted HR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.94; p=0.016). The safety and effectiveness of DCS versus BMS were consistent according to ARC-HBR status (p for interaction=0.206 and 0.260, respectively)., Conclusions: DCS are safer and more effective than BMS in an ARC-defined HBR population.

Background: Interventional cardiologists receive feedback on their clinical care from a variety of sources including registry-based quality measures, case conferences, and informal peer interactions. However, the impact of this feedback on clinical care is unclear., Methods: We interviewed interventional cardiologists regarding the use of feedback to improve their care of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients. Interviews were assessed with template analysis using deductive and inductive techniques., Results: Among 20 interventional cardiologists from private, academic, and Department of Veterans Affairs practice, 85% were male, 75% performed at least 100 PCIs annually, and 55% were in practice for 5 years or more. All reported receiving feedback on their practice, including formal quality measures and peer learning activities. Many respondents were critical of quality measure reporting, citing lack of trust in outcomes measures and poor applicability to clinical care. Some respondents reported the use of process measures such as contrast volume and fluoroscopy time for benchmarking their performance. Case conferences and informal peer feedback were perceived as timelier and more impactful on clinical care. Respondents identified facilitators of successful feedback interventions including transparent processes, respectful and reciprocal peer relationships, and integration of feedback into collective goals. Hierarchy and competitive environments inhibited useful feedback., Conclusions: Despite substantial resources dedicated to performance measurement and feedback for PCI, interventional cardiologists perceive existing quality measures to be of only modest value for improving clinical care. Catherization laboratories should seek to integrate quality measures into a holistic quality program that emphasizes peer learning, collective goals and mutual respect., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Revascularization of ischemic cardiomyopathy by coronary artery bypass grafting has been shown to improve survival among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, but the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this context is incompletely described. This study sought to evaluate the effect of PCI on mortality and hospitalization among patients with stable coronary artery disease and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis comparing PCI with medical therapy among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy in the Veterans Affairs Health Administration. Patients with angiographic evidence of 1 or more epicardial stenoses amenable to PCI and LVEF ≤35% were included in the analysis. Outcome data were determined by VA and non-VA data sources on mortality and hospital admission., Results: From 2008 through 2015, a study sample of 4,628 patients was identified, of which 1,322 patients underwent ad hoc PCI. Patients were followed to a maximum of 3 years. Propensity score weighted landmark analysis was used to evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes. The primary outcome of all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the PCI cohort compared with medical therapy (21.6% vs 30.0%, P <.001). The secondary outcome of all-cause rehospitalization or death was also lower in the PCI cohort (76.5% vs 83.8%, P <.001)., Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with coronary artery disease amenable to PCI and LVEF ≤35%, revascularization by PCI was associated with decreased all-cause mortality and decreased all-cause death or rehospitalization., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The aims of this study were to examine rates of radial artery access in post-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients undergoing diagnostic catherization and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), whether operators with higher procedural volumes and higher percentage radial use were more likely to perform diagnostic catherization and/or PCI via the radial approach in post-CABG patients, and clinical and procedural outcomes in post-CABG patients who undergo diagnostic catherization and/or PCI via the radial or femoral approach., Background: There are limited data comparing outcomes of patients with prior CABG undergoing transradial or transfemoral diagnostic catheterization and/or PCI., Methods: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry, all diagnostic catheterizations and PCIs performed in patients with prior CABG from July 1, 2009, to March 31, 2018 (n = 1,279,058, 1,173 sites) were evaluated. Temporal trends in transradial access were examined, and mortality, bleeding, vascular complications, and procedural metrics were compared between transradial and transfemoral access., Results: The rate of transradial access increased from 1.4% to 18.7% over the study period. Transradial access was associated with decreased mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 0.91), decreased bleeding (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.63), decreased vascular complications (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.47), increased PCI procedural success (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.16; p < 0.0001), and significantly decreased contrast volume across all procedure types. Transradial access was associated with shorter fluoroscopy time for PCI-only procedures but longer fluoroscopy time for diagnostic procedures plus ad hoc PCI and diagnostic procedures only. Operators with a higher rate of transradial access in non-CABG patients were more likely to perform transradial access in patients with prior CABG., Conclusions: The rate of transradial artery access in patients with prior CABG undergoing diagnostic catheterization and/or PCI has increased over the past decade in the United States, and it was more often performed by operators using a transradial approach in non-CABG patients. Compared with transfemoral access, transradial access was associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with prior CABG., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry is an initiative of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. This research was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Dr. Rymer has received research grants from Boston Scientific and Abbott Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Swaminathan receives research support from ACIST Medical; and provides consulting services for Medtronic. Dr. Abbott has received grant support with no personal compensation from Sinomed, CSL Behring, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Abbott Vascular; and provides consulting services for Recor and Philips. Dr. Gilchrist provides consulting services for Cardinal Health and Terumo Medical Corporation. Dr. Panetta is the co-owner of the medical device company LP Medical. Dr. Brilakis provides consulting services for Abbott Vascular, the American Heart Association (associate editor, Circulation), Amgen, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), ControlRad, CSI, Ebix, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, InfraRedx, Medtronic, Siemens, and Teleflex; receives research support from Regeneron and Siemens; and is a shareholder in MHI Ventures. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transradial intervention (TRI) was first introduced by Lucien Campeau in 1989 and since then has created a lasting impact in the field of interventional cardiology. Several studies have demonstrated that TRI is associated with fewer vascular site complications, offer earlier ambulation and greater post-procedural comfort. Patients presenting with ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) have experienced survival benefit and higher quality-of-life metrics as well with TRI. While both the updated scientific statement by the American Heart Association and the 2017 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a "radial first" approach there appears to be a lag in physicians adapting TRI as the preferred vascular access. We present a review focusing on identification and management of TRA related challenges and complications using a systematic algorithmic approach., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest All authors have none to declare., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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

Objective: To evaluate the association of plasma long pentraxin 3 (PTX3) concentration with angiographic and clinical outcomes in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated by primary angioplasty., Background: Whether concentration of PTX3, a sensitive marker of inflammation, associates with angiographic and clinical outcomes in STEMI patients treated by primary angioplasty is unknown., Methods: We prospectively enrolled 335 consecutive patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary angioplasty. Blood samples for plasma PTX3 measurement were drawn in all patients at the emergency department before primary angioplasty, and were measured by ELISA method., Results: The median PTX3 concentrations were higher in patients with thrombus burden grade 4 and 5 versus grade <4 on initial coronary angiogram (0.29 ng/ml vs. 0.24 ng/ml, p = .02), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade <3 vs. TIMI grade-3 flow after primary angioplasty (0.31 ng/ml vs. 0.24 ng/ml, p < .001), incomplete versus complete ST-segment resolution within 12 hr after angioplasty (0.29 ng/ml vs. 0.22 ng/ml, p = .001) and in patients who did not survive versus those who survived at 30 days (0.44 ng/ml vs. 0.26 ng/ml, p = .001). A linear correlation was observed between PTX3 concentration and baseline leukocyte count (Spearman correlation = 0.21, p < .001). After adjustment for laboratory and selected clinical variables, patients in the highest quartile of PTX3 concentration (≥0.4 ng/ml) were associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality (hazard ratio = 11.83; 95% confidence interval = 1.52-92.27, p = .01)., Conclusion: This study suggests that higher plasma PTX3 concentration associates with worse angiographic and clinical outcomes in STEMI patients treated by primary angioplasty., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)