Search

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

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention., (© 2019 The Authors. The European Heart Journal is published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology, Inc., by Oxford University Press. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial, and no modifications or adaptations are made.)

Background: Considerable variability remains as regards the appropriate and safe length of stay after elective PCI. We performed a survey of interventional cardiologists to identify current views on appropriate and safe length of stay after PCI., Methods: We created an online survey using the commercially available SurveyMonkey application. This was sent to interventional cardiologists in the US, Canada and the UK with the assistance of the national interventional cardiology societies (SCAI, CAIC/CCS, BCIS/BCS) as well as being made available on the theheart.org website., Results: 505 interventional cardiologists responded, of which 237 were practicing in the US. Of those from the US, 52% were not aware of any guidelines for length of stay and 48% reported that their unit did not have a standard practice for length of stay. Same-day discharge after PCI was practiced as routine by 14% of cardiologists in the US versus 32% of cardiologists from Canada (P = 0.003) and 57% (P < 0.0001) from the UK. Amongst respondents, there was significant variation between respondents and divergence from published SCAI guidelines regarding appropriate length of stay for patient specific and procedural related clinical factors., Conclusions: There is considerable variation in practice patterns regarding length of stay after PCI. Whilst most cardiologists practice overnight observation, a significant minority utilize same-day discharge. There is also lack of familiarity with published guidelines. This variation and knowledge gap confirms an urgent need for updated guidelines and a concerted effort to educate cardiologists on appropriate post-PCI length of stay. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)