Search

Background: Despite the potential benefits of percutaneous procedures for the assessment and treatment of coronary artery disease, these interventions require the use of iodine contrast, which might lead to contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and increased risk of dialysis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE)., Aims: We sought to compare two different iodine contrasts (low vs. iso-osmolar) for the prevention of CIN among high-risk patients., Methods: This is a single-center, randomized (1:1) trial comparing consecutive patients at high risk for CIN referred to percutaneous coronary diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedures with low (ioxaglate) vs. iso-osmolarity (iodixanol) iodine contrast. High risk was defined by the presence of at least one of the following conditions: age >70 years, diabetes mellitus, non-dialytic chronic kidney disease, chronic heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of CIN, defined as a >25% relative increase and/or >0.5 mg/dL absolute increase in creatinine (Cr) levels compared with baseline between the 2nd and 5th day after contrast media administration., Results: A total of 2,268 patients were enrolled. Mean age was 67 years. Diabetes mellitus (53%), non-dialytic chronic kidney disease (31%), and ACS (39%) were highly prevalent. The mean volume of contrast media was 89 ml ± 48.6. CIN occurred in 15% of all patients, with no significant difference regarding the type of contrast used (iso = 15.2% vs. low = 15.1%, P>.99). Differences were not observed in specific subgroups such as diabetics, elderly, and ACS patients. At 30-day follow-up, 13 patients in the iso-osmolarity group and 11 in low-osmolarity group required dialysis (P =.8). There were 37 (3.3%) deaths in the iso-osmolarity cohort vs. 29 (2.6%) in the low-osmolarity group (P =.4)., Conclusion: Among patients at high risk for CIN, the incidence of this complication was 15%, and independent of the use of low- or iso-osmolar contrast.

Remarkable progress has been made in the pharmacological management of patients with cardiovascular disease, including the frequent use of antithrombotic agents. Nonetheless, bleeding complications remain frequent and potentially life-threatening. Therapeutic interventions relying on prompt antithrombotic drug reversal or removal have been developed to assist clinicians in treating patients with active bleeding or an imminent threat of major bleeding due to urgent surgery or invasive procedures. Early phase studies on these novel strategies have shown promising results using surrogate pharmacodynamic endpoints. However, the benefit of reversing/removing antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs should always be weighed against the possible prothrombotic effects associated with withdrawal of antithrombotic protection, bleeding, and surgical trauma. Understanding the ischemic-bleeding risk tradeoff of antithrombotic drug reversal and removal strategies in the context of urgent high-risk settings requires dedicated clinical investigations, but challenges in trial design remain, with relevant practical, financial, and ethical implications., (© 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.)

Objective: To determine the prognostic impact of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients randomized to bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: CAD is a common comorbidity among patients undergoing TAVR and studies provide conflicting data on its prognostic impact., Methods: The Bivalirudin on Aortic Valve Intervention Outcomes-3 (BRAVO-3) randomized trial compared the use of bivalirudin versus UFH in 802 high-surgical risk patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Patients were stratified according to the presence or absence of history of CAD as well as periprocedural anticoagulation. The coprimary endpoints were net adverse cardiac events (NACE; a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding) and major Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding ≥3b at 30 days postprocedure., Results: Among 801 patients, 437 (54.6%) had history of CAD of whom 223 (51.0%) received bivalirudin. There were no significant differences in NACE (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-1.58) or BARC ≥ 3b bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.51-1.39) in patients with vs without CAD at 30 days. Among CAD patients, periprocedural use of bivalirudin was associated with similar NACE (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.47-1.35) and BARC ≥ 3b bleeding (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.33-1.25) compared with UFH, irrespective of history of CAD (p-interaction = 0.959 for NACE; p-interaction = 0.479 for major bleeding)., Conclusion: CAD was not associated with a higher short-term risk of NACE or major bleeding after TAVR. Periprocedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin did not show any advantage over UFH in patients with and without CAD., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is an established procedure to treat carotid artery stenosis for either primary or secondary prevention of stroke. Randomized clinical trials have shown an increased risk of periprocedural cerebrovascular events with CAS compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Several strategies have been proposed to mitigate this risk, including alternative vascular access site, proximal/distal embolic protection devices, and dual-layer stents, among others., Areas Covered: This review provides a general overview of current embolic protection strategies for CAS. The phases of the procedure which can affect the early risk of stroke and how to reduce it with novel techniques and devices have been discussed., Expert Opinion: Innovations in device technologies have dramatically improved the safety and efficacy of CAS. To minimize the gap with surgery, a thorough, patient-oriented approach should be pursued. Endovascular technologies and techniques should be selected on an individual basis to address unique lesion characteristics and vascular anatomies. Meticulous pre-procedural planning, both clinical and anatomical, is needed to assess the embolic risk of each procedure. Only by having an in-depth understanding of the wide range of available endovascular devices and techniques, the operator will choose the most appropriate strategy to optimize CAS results.

Left main coronary artery (LMA) disease jeopardizes a large area of myocardium and increases the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. LMCA disease is found in 5% to 7% of all diagnostic coronary angiographies, and more than 80% of the patients enrolled in recent large randomized controlled left main trials had distal left main bifurcation or trifurcation disease. Emerging clinical evidence from prospective all-comer registries and randomized trials has provided a solid basis for percutaneous coronary intervention as a treatment option in selected patients with unprotected LMCA disease; however, to date, no uniform recommendations as to optimal stenting strategy for LMCA bifurcation lesions exist. This review provides an overview of provisional stenting technique and escalation to 2-stent strategies in LMCA bifurcation lesions. Data from randomized controlled trials and registries are reviewed. Technical characteristics of optimal provisional LMCA stenting technique and angiographic and intravascular determinants of escalation are also summarized., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Paradies has received speaker fee/consultancy for Abbott/Boston Scientific and Abbott research grant to the Institution. Dr Chieffo has received speaker fee/consultancy for Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Biosensor, Menarini, and Shock Wave Medical. Prof Kirtane has received institutional funding to Columbia University and/or Cardiovascular Research Foundation from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Amgen, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, Neurotronic, Biotronik, Chiesi, Bolt Medical, Magenta Medical, Canon, SoniVie, Shockwave Medical, and Merck; in addition to research grants, institutional funding includes fees paid to Columbia University and/or Cardiovascular Research Foundation for consulting and/or speaking engagements in which Dr Kirtane controlled the content; has received consulting fees from IMDS; and has received travel expenses/meals from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, CSI, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, OpSens, Zoll, and Regeneron. Prof van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, PulseCath BV, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca; and has received advisory/consultancy fees from Amgen, Anteris, JenaValve, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Medtronic, Abiomed, Amgen, PulseCath BV, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Complex percutaneous coronary intervention (C-PCI) is associated with an increased risk of ischaemic and bleeding complications. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a 1-3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimen followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after C-PCI., Methods and Results: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing a 1-3-month DAPT regimen followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with standard (≥12 months) DAPT in patients undergoing C-PCI. C-PCI criteria and the co-primary bleeding and ischaemic outcomes were determined according to each trial. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. All outcomes were evaluated at 12 months after randomization. We used hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) as a metric of choice for treatment effects with random-effects models. Among 8299 screened studies, five randomized trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In the pooled population of 34 615 patients, 8818 (25.5%) underwent C-PCI. As compared with standard DAPT, a 1-3-month DAPT regimen followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduced the bleeding risk in C-PCI (HR:0.66, 95% CI:0.44-0.98) and non-C-PCI (HR:0.60, 95% CI:0.45-0.79) patients (P-interaction = 0.735). Furthermore, the risk for the primary ischaemic endpoint was similar in patients randomized to either arm, with significant effect modification by PCI complexity showing an enhanced benefit of 1-3-month DAPT in patients undergoing C-PCI (C-PCI, HR:0.69, 95% CI:0.48-1.00; non-C-PCI, HR:1.04, 95% CI:0.84-1.30; P-interaction = 0.028)., Conclusion: As compared with a standard DAPT, a 1-3-month DAPT regimen followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduced bleeding complications after C-PCI without increasing the risk of ischaemic events.PROSPERO-registered (CRD42021259271)., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) is still debated. The current study, using the totality of existing evidence, evaluated the impact of an abbreviated DAPT regimen in HBR patients., Methods and Results: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to search randomized clinical trials comparing abbreviated [i.e. very-short (1 month) or short (3 months)] with standard (≥6 months) DAPT in HBR patients without indication for oral anticoagulation. A total of 11 trials, including 9006 HBR patients, were included. Abbreviated DAPT reduced major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding [risk ratio (RR): 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.94; I2 = 28%], major bleeding (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99, I2 = 0%), and cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95, I2 = 0%) compared with standard DAPT. No difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis was observed. Results were consistent, irrespective of HBR definition and clinical presentation., Conclusion: In HBR patients undergoing PCI, a 1- or 3-month abbreviated DAPT regimen was associated with lower bleeding and cardiovascular mortality, without increasing ischaemic events, compared with a ≥6-month DAPT regimen., Study Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021284004., (© The Author(s) 2022. 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.)

A universal definition to identify patients at higher risk of complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is lacking. We aimed to validate a recently developed score to identify patients at increased risk of all-cause death after PCI. All consecutive patients from a large PCI registry not presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock were included. Each patient was assigned a score obtained by summing the points associated with the following variables: age >80 years (3 points), dialysis (6 points), left ventricular ejection fraction <30% (2 points), and multivessel PCI (2 points). Patients were stratified in 3 groups: low risk (score 0), intermediate risk (score 2 to 3), or high risk (score ≥4). The primary outcome was all-cause death, and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding. Events were assessed at 1 year after PCI. Between January 2014 and December 2019, 12,689 patients underwent PCI. Compared with the 9,884 patients at low risk, those at intermediate and high risk had a fourfold (hazard ratio 3.99, 95% confidence interval 2.95 to 5.38) and ninefold (hazard ratio 9.55, 95% confidence interval 6.89 to 13.2) higher hazard for all-cause death at 1 year, respectively. The score had a good predictive value for all-cause death at 1 year (area under the curve 0.70). The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding increased consistently from the low- to the high-risk group. In conclusion, in patients who underwent PCI for stable ischemic heart disease or non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, a score based on 4 variables well predicted the risk of all-cause death at 1 year., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at higher risk of ischemic and bleeding events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Complex PCI (CPCI) is associated with higher rates of ischemic complications. Whether CPCI confers an additive risk of adverse events in CKD patients is unclear., Methods: Patients who underwent PCI at a single tertiary-care-center between 2012 and 2019 were stratified by CKD status and CPCI. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target-vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome and major bleeding., Results: Out of 15,071 patients, 4537 (30.1%) had CKD and 10,534 (69.9%) had no CKD. Patients undergoing CPCI were 1151 (25.4%) and 2983 (28.3%) in the two cohorts, respectively. At one year, CPCI compared with no CPCI was associated with higher risk of MACE in both CKD (Adj. HR 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-2.06, p < 0.001) and no-CKD patients (Adj. hazard ratios [HR] 2.19, 95% CI 1.91-2.51, p < 0.001; p of interaction 0.057), determined by an excess of death, MI and TVR in CKD patients and of TVR and MI only in no-CKD. CPCI was related with a consistent increase of major bleeding in the CKD (Adj. HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.18-1.87, p < 0.001) and no-CKD group (Adj. HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.98-1.54, p = 0.071, p of interaction 0.206)., Conclusion: At 1-year follow-up, CPCI was associated with higher risk of MACE and major bleeding irrespective of concomitant CKD. CPCI predicted mortality in CKD patients only., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aims: To evaluate the impact of perioperative P2Y12 receptor inhibitor therapy among patients undergoing cardiac surgery within 1 year of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods and Results: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery in the year post-PCI at three tertiary care centres between 2011 and 2018 were stratified into those who had received at least one dose of P2Y12 inhibitor prior to surgery (within 5 days for clopidogrel or prasugrel, or within 3 days for ticagrelor) and those who had not. The outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and bleeding. Among 20 279 PCI patients, 359 (1.8%) underwent cardiac surgery in the ensuing year, 76.3% of whom received coronary artery bypass grafts. Overall, 33 (9.2%) MACCEs and 85 (23.7%) bleeding events occurred within 30 days post-cardiac surgery. Perioperative P2Y12 inhibition (N = 133, 37%) was not associated with the risk of MACCEs or bleeding, despite numerically lower rates of myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis (0.0% vs. 2.6%; P = 0.089). Patients who continued the P2Y12 inhibitor until the day of surgery (N = 60, 17%) had significantly higher bleeding risk [adjusted odds ratio 2.93, 95% confidence interval 1.53-5.59)]. Predictors of MACCEs included a time interval from PCI to cardiac surgery of ≤30 days and reduced ejection fraction, whereas urgent/emergent surgery predicted bleeding. Chronic kidney disease and myocardial infarction as indication for PCI predicted both MACCEs and bleeding., Conclusion: Among patients undergoing cardiac surgery in the year after PCI, the perioperative risk of ischaemic and bleeding events might be influenced by P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in addition to other risk parameters, including the timing and urgency of the procedure., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

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

Background: There is a paucity of data regarding the safety and efficacy of different antiplatelet regimens according to standardized body mass index (BMI) categories., Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate bleeding and ischemic outcomes according to BMI in the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial., Methods: The TWILIGHT trial randomized high-risk patients to ticagrelor plus aspirin or ticagrelor plus placebo at 3 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. In this secondary analysis, patients were stratified by standard BMI categories, as recommended by the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis (normal weight [BMI 18.5-24.99 kg/m 2 ], overweight [BMI 25-29.99 kg/m 2 ], and obese [BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 ]) and by median BMI, as prespecified in the protocol., Results: Among 7,038 patients randomized and with available BMI, 1,807 (25.7%) were normal weight, 2,927 (41.6%) were overweight, and 2,304 (32.7%) were obese. In normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients, ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, reduced the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (normal weight: HR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.32-0.73]; overweight: HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.41-0.78]; obese: HR: 0.63 [95% CI: 0.44-0.91]; P for interaction = 0.627), without any increase in the composite ischemic endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (normal weight: HR: 1.36 [95% CI: 0.84-2.19]; overweight: HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.63-1.35]; obese: HR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.56-1.25]; P for interaction = 0.290). These findings were consistent with the prespecified analysis by median BMI., Conclusions: Among high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, reduced bleeding events without any increase in ischemic risk across different BMI categories., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr Baber has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr Cohen has received grant support, paid to his institution, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; and has received grant support, paid to his institution, from Boston Scientific. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has received payments for participation in review activities from CeloNova and St. Jude Medical, outside the present work; and has received research grants to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Dangas has received consulting fees and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; has received consulting fees from Biosensors; and previously held stock in Medtronic. Dr Escaned has received consulting and lecture fees from Abbott, Philips, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has received lecture fees from Abiomed, Terumo, and Biosensors. Dr Gurbel has received grant support and consulting fees from Bayer, Medicure, US WorldMeds, and Merck; has received grant support from Instrumentation Laboratory, Haemonetics, Amgen, Idorsia, Janssen, and Ionis; and holds patent 9188597 on detection of restenosis risk in patients receiving stents by measuring the characteristics of blood clotting, including measurement of maximum thrombin-induced clot strength. Dr Hamm has received lecture and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Huber has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr Mehta has received grant support from and has served on an executive committee and as site investigator for AstraZeneca. Dr Ohman has received consulting fees from 3D Communications, ACI Clinical, Biotie, Cara Therapeutics, Cardinal Health, Faculty Connection, Imbria, Impulse Medical, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medscape, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, and XyloCor; has received grant support and consulting fees from Abiomed; and has received grant support from Chiesi and Portola. Dr Oldroyd has received grant support and lecture fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Steg has received grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from Bayer/Janssen; has received grant support and lecture fees from Merck; has received grant support, fees for serving as co-chair of trials, consulting fees, and lecture fees from Sanofi; has received grant support, fees for serving on an executive steering committee, and consulting fees from Amarin; has received consulting and lecture fees from Amgen; has received consulting fees, lecture fees, and fees for serving on a critical event committee from Bristol Myers Squibb; has received fees for serving on an executive steering committee from Boehringer Ingelheim; has received fees for serving on a critical event committee from Pfizer; has received fees for serving on a steering committee and consulting fees from Novartis; has received consulting fees from Regeneron, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk; has received consulting and lecture fees from AstraZeneca; has received grant support, fees for serving as chair of a data monitoring committee, and fees for serving as chair of a registry from Servier; and has received fees for serving on a steering committee from Idorsia. Dr. Gibson has received grant support and consulting fees from Angel Medical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Portola Pharmaceuticals; has received consulting fees from The Medicines Company, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Novo Nordisk, WebMD, UpToDate Cardiovascular Medicine, Amarin Pharma, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Merck, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Somahlution, Verreseon, Boston Scientific, Impact Bio, MedImmume, Medtelligence, MicroPort, the PERT Consortium, and GE Healthcare; holds equity in Inference; serves as chief executive officer of the Baim Institute; and has received grant support, paid to the Baim Institute, from Bristol Myers Squibb and Astra Zeneca. Dr Mehran has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Insel Gruppe, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, Philips, Transverse Medical, and Zoll; has received personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Boston Scientific, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; has received consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, AM-Pharma, Alleviant Medical, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke University, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Novartis, and Philips; holds equity (<1%) in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, and CONTROLRAD (spouse); and is a scientific advisory board member for the American Medical Association and Biosensors (spouse). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy (APT) therapy in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery (NCS) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear. We sought to identify predictors of APT cessation in a real-world cohort of patients undergoing NCS within 1 year of PCI., Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing PCI at a tertiary center between 2011 and 2018 were prospectively enrolled. Perioperative interruption of APT was defined as cessation of either aspirin or P2Y 12 inhibitor between 1 and 14 days prior to NCS. Predictors of APT discontinuation were identified by multivariable Cox regression with stepwise selection of candidate variables., Results: A total of 1092 surgeries corresponding to 747 patients were identified. Overall, there were 487 (44.6%) preoperative antiplatelet interruptions: discontinuation of either P2Y 12 inhibitors only (47.4%), aspirin only (7.9%), or both agents (44.7%). Both patient-specific risk factors (prior stroke, lower BMI, anemia, MI) and procedure specific risk factors (chronic total occlusions, multivessel disease, drug-eluting stent use) affected decisions regarding APT cessation. Likelihood of APT cessation increased in higher-risk surgeries and in patients on more potent P2Y 12 inhibitors (ticagrelor/prasugrel vs clopidogrel) whereas those undergoing NCS <90 days post PCI were less likely to have cessation of APT., Conclusion: In this contemporary cohort of post-PCI patients undergoing NCS, patient-, angiographic- and surgery-specific factors all affected decision-making regarding APT cessation. Our findings reflective of real-world practice, highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary team approach to individualize decision making in these patients., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Randomized controlled trials comparing the use of the MitraClip device in addition to guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) to GDMT alone in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) have shown conflicting results. However, if these differences could be due to the underlying MR aetiology is still unknown. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate if the effects of percutaneous edge-to-edge repair with MitraClip implantation could differ in patients with ischaemic (I-MR) and non-ischaemic mitral regurgitation (NI-MR)., Methods and Results: PubMed, Embase, BioMed Central, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for all studies including patients with secondary MR treated with the MitraClip device. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death and heart failure-related hospitalization. Secondary endpoints were the single components of the primary endpoint, New York Heart Association functional Classes III and IV, and mitral valve re-intervention. Seven studies enrolling 2501 patients were included. Patients with I-MR compared with patients with NI-MR had a similar risk of the primary endpoint (odds ratio: 1.17; 95% confidence interval: 0.93 to 1.46; I 2 : 0%). The risk of all-cause death was increased in patients with I-MR (odds ratio: 1.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.07 to 1.62; I 2 : 0%), while no differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the other secondary endpoints., Conclusions: The risk of mortality after MitraClip implantation is lower in patients with NI-MR than in those with I-MR. No absolute differences in the risk of heart failure related hospitalization were observed between groups., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: We aimed to evaluate the treatment effects of ticagrelor monotherapy in the very high risk cohort of patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods and Results: In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor and aspirin post-PCI, event-free patients were randomized to either aspirin or placebo in addition to ticagrelor for 12 months. Those with available information on DM and CKD status were included in this subanalysis and were stratified by the presence or absence of either condition: 3391 (54.1%) had neither DM nor CKD (DM-/CKD-), 1822 (29.0%) had DM only (DM+/CKD-), 561 (8.9%) had CKD only (DM-/CKD+), and 8.0% had both DM and CKD (DM+/CKD+). The incidence of the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding did not differ according to DM/CKD status (P-trend = 0.13), but there was a significant increase in BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (P-trend &lt; 0.001) as well as the key secondary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (P-trend &lt; 0.001). Ticagrelor plus placebo reduced bleeding events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin across all four groups, including DM+/CKD+ patients with respect to BARC 2-5 [4.5% vs. 8.7%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-1.01] as well as BARC 3-5 (0.8% vs. 5.3%; HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.53) bleeding, with no evidence of heterogeneity. The risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was similar between treatment arms across all groups., Conclusion: Irrespective of the presence of DM, CKD, and their combination, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the risk of bleeding without a significant increase in ischaemic events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors have cardiovascular (CV) benefits in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether these medications improve CV outcomes irrespective of heart failure history or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in HFrEF remains unknown., Methods and Results: All randomized, placebo-controlled trials of SGLT-2 inhibitors reporting similar CV outcomes were searched in PubMed from 1 January 2010 to 1 October 2021. The primary outcome was the composite of hospitalization for heart failure or CV death. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as effect estimates and calculated with a random-effects model. Data from 11 trials and a total of 66 957 patients (n = 36 758 SGLT-2 group, n = 30 199 placebo group) were included. SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure or CV death in patients with (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.80) and without (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.86; Pinteraction = 0.69) heart failure. Patients with (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95) and without (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.95; Pinteraction = 0.67) heart failure treated with SGLT-2 inhibitors had a reduction in all-cause mortality. Reduction in the primary outcome was consistently observed in HFrEF patients with (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59-0.78) and without (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99; Pinteraction = 0.13) severely reduced LVEF, and in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.92; Pinteraction = 0.65)., Conclusion: SGLT-2 inhibitors improved CV outcomes irrespective of heart failure history or type, and severity of LVEF reduction., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aim: Optimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) intends to balance ischemic and bleeding risks. Various DAPT de-escalation strategies, defined as switching from a full-dose potent to a reduced dose or less potent P2Y12 inhibitor, have been evaluated in several ACS-PCI trials. We aimed to compare DAPT de-escalation to standard DAPT with full-dose potent P2Y12 inhibitors in ACS patients who underwent PCI., Methods and Results: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials. Aspirin monotherapy trials were excluded. Five randomized trials (n = 10 779 patients) that assigned DAPT de-escalation (genetically guided to clopidogrel n = 1242; platelet function guided to clopidogrel n = 1304; unguided to clopidogrel n = 1672; unguided to lower dose n = 1170) vs. standard DAPT (control group n = 5391) were included in this analysis. DAPT de-escalation was associated with a significant reduction in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥2 bleeding (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.78; I2 = 77%) as well as major adverse cardiac events, represented in most trials by the composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.96; I2 = 0%). Notwithstanding the limited power, consistency was noted across various de-escalation strategies., Conclusion: De-escalation of DAPT after PCI for ACS, both unguided and guided by genetic or platelet function testing (PFT), was associated with lower rates of clinically relevant bleeding and ischemic events as compared to standard DAPT with potent P2Y12 inhibitors based on five open-label RCTs reviewed., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Historically, prevention from ischemic events with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) took precedence over protection from bleeding. However, increasing data suggest that major bleeding complications are as detrimental as ischemic events. Awareness about the prognostic impact of bleeding prompted the search for new strategies aimed at maximizing both ischemic and bleeding protection. This is noteworthy because patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) have generally been underrepresented in clinical trials on DAPT and they often are at increased risk of ischemic events as well. The present review discusses the evidence base for new pharmacotherapeutic strategies to decrease bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection among HBR patients undergoing PCI, including shortening DAPT duration, early aspirin withdrawal, and P2Y 12 inhibitor de-escalation., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.)

Although most patients with small aortic annulus are women, there is paucity of data on the prognostic impact of small aortic prosthesis in women who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the impact of small valve size on 1-year clinical outcomes after TAVI in women. The Women's INternational Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation is an all-women registry evaluating patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI. Based on the size of the aortic bioprosthesis implanted, women were stratified into small (≤23 mm) and nonsmall (>23 mm) valve. The primary efficacy endpoint was the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for valve-related symptoms or heart failure or valve-related dysfunction at 1-year follow-up. Of 934 women who underwent TAVI, 388 (41.5%) received a small valve. Women with a small valve size had a lower body mass index, lower surgical risk scores, were less likely to suffer from atrial fibrillation, less often required postdilation and had a lower rate of residual aortic regurgitation grade ≥2. The occurrence of the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 efficacy endpoint was similar between women treated with small and nonsmall valve (16.0% vs 16.3%, p = 0.881; adjusted hazard ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 2.00). Likewise, there were no significant differences in the occurrence of other secondary endpoints after multivariable adjustment. In conclusion, women with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI with the implantation of a small valve bioprosthesis had similar 1-year outcomes as those receiving a nonsmall bioprosthesis., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Inflammation and procedural complexity are individually associated with adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to evaluate the association of high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) with adverse events according to PCI complexity. We included patients with available hsCRP levels who underwent PCI at our center from 2012 to 2017. We compared patients with hsCRP ≥3 versus <3 mg/L. Complex PCI was defined as having ≥1 of the following: ≥3 different target vessels, ≥3 lesions treated, ≥3 stents implanted, bifurcation lesion treated with 2 stents, chronic total occlusion as target lesion, or total stent length >60 mm. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 1 year. A total of 11,979 patients were included, of which 2,840 (24%) underwent complex PCI. In those, 767 (27%) had hsCRP ≥3 mg/L. The 1-year incidence of MACE was 6% (noncomplex PCI, low hsCRP), 10% (noncomplex PCI, high hsCRP), 10% (complex PCI, low hsCRP), and 15% (complex PCI, high hsCRP). Overall, hsCRP ≥3 mg/L was associated with an increased risk of MACE compared with hsCRP <3 mg/L; this was independent of the number of complex PCI features: 0 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27 to 1.86), 1 (adjusted HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.21 to 2.60), or ≥2 (adjusted HR 1.21; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.83) (p interaction  = 0.42). In conclusion, in patients who underwent PCI, elevated hsCRP is associated with an increased risk of ischemic events. The effect of elevated hsCRP on cardiovascular risk is consistent regardless of PCI complexity., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the TWILIGHT trial, ticagrelor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was shown to be a safe bleeding avoidance strategy in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES)., Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy after three-month DAPT in patients undergoing PCI, according to DES type., Methods: In the current sub-analysis from TWILIGHT, patients were stratified into three groups based on DES type: durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES), durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DP-ZES), and biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES). Bleeding and ischaemic outcomes were assessed at one year after randomisation., Results: Out of 5,769 patients, 3,014 (52.2%) had DP-EES, 1,350 (23.4%) had DP-ZES and 1,405 (24.4%) had BP-DES. Compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, ticagrelor monotherapy had significantly lower BARC type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding compared with DAPT; DP-EES (3.8% vs 6.7%; HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.41-0.78), DP-ZES (4.6% vs 6.9%; HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.42-1.04) and BP-DES (4.2% vs 7.9%; HR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.33-0.81; p interaction =0.76). Ticagrelor monotherapy resulted in similar rates of death, MI, or stroke: DP-EES (4.2% vs 4.3%; HR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.68-1.37); DP-ZES (4.1% vs 3.1%; HR 1.32; 95% CI: 0.75-2.33); BP-DES (3.9% vs 4.2%; HR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.54-1.55; p interaction =0.60). In both unadjusted and covariate-adjusted analyses, DES type was not associated with any differences in ischaemic or bleeding complications., Conclusions: As compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, ticagrelor monotherapy after a short DAPT duration lowered bleeding complications without increasing the ischaemic risk, irrespective of DES type. We observed no significant differences among DES types.

Cardiovascular disease constitutes the leading cause of mortality worldwide, irrespective of race/ethnicity. Previous studies have shown that minority patients with acute coronary syndrome have distinct clinical, anatomic, and socioeconomic characteristics which may affect clinical outcomes. We included patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI, or unstable angina in a single center. Patients were stratified into Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian. Caucasians were the reference group. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, composite of death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. Of 6,800 patients included, 49.7% were Caucasian, 20.7% Hispanic, 17.0% Asian and 12.6% African-American. Caucasians were the oldest, Hispanics and Asians had the highest prevalence of diabetes mellitus whereas African-Americans had more chronic kidney disease. Hispanics and African-Americans had the highest STEMI rates, whereas Asians were more likely to present with unstable angina. Compared with Caucasians, Asians had a lower rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 1 year (3.9% vs 7.1%; p <0.01) whereas Hispanics (6.2% vs 7.1%; p = 0.17) and African-Americans (8.0% vs 7.1%; p = 0.38) had comparable outcomes. Differences were driven by mortality. Findings remained unchanged after adjustment. In conclusion, in acute coronary syndrome patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Asian race/ethnicity was associated with favorable cardiovascular outcomes compared with Caucasians. No significant differences were observed for Hispanics and African-Americans., Competing Interests: Disclosures The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Perioperative cardiovascular complications are important causes of morbidity and mortality associated with non-cardiac surgery, especially in patients with recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to illustrate the types and timing of different surgeries occurring after PCI, and to evaluate the risk of thrombotic and bleeding events according to the perioperative antiplatelet management. Patients undergoing urgent or elective non-cardiac surgery within 1 year of PCI at a tertiary-care center between 2011 and 2018 were included. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE; composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) at 30 days. Perioperative bleeding was defined as ≥ 2 units of blood transfusion. A total of 1092 surgeries corresponding to 747 patients were classified by surgical risk (low: 50.9%, intermediate: 38.4%, high: 10.7%) and priority (elective: 88.5%, urgent/emergent: 11.5%). High-risk and urgent/emergent surgeries tended to occur earlier post-PCI compared to low-risk and elective ones, and were associated with an increased risk of both MACE and bleeding. Preoperative interruption of antiplatelet therapy (of any kind) occurred in 44.6% of all NCS and was more likely for procedures occurring later post-PCI and at intermediate risk. There was no significant association between interruption of antiplatelet therapy and adverse cardiac events. Among patients undergoing NCS within 1 year of PCI, perioperative ischemic and bleeding events primarily depend on the estimated surgical risk and urgency of the procedure, which are increased early after PCI. Preoperative antiplatelet interruption was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac events., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are at increased risk for thrombotic and bleeding complications compared to patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). The academic research consortium (ARC) recently suggested a set of criteria to identify patients at high bleeding risk (HBR). We sought to evaluate the performance of the ARC-HBR criteria among patients undergoing PCI according to clinical presentation. We included all consecutive patients undergoing PCI at a tertiary-care center. Patients were deemed at HBR if they fulfilled ≥ 1 major or ≥ 2 minor ARC-HBR criteria. The primary bleeding endpoint was a composite of in-hospital or post-discharge bleeding at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death and myocardial infarction. Out of 6068 patients, 1391 (22.9 %) presented with AMI and were more often at HBR than those with CCS (46.9 % vs. 43.0 %, p = 0.01). HBR patients had a higher risk for the primary bleeding endpoint than non-HBR, irrespective of the clinical indication for PCI (AMI: 19.5 % vs. 5.5 %; HR 3.86, 95 % CI 2.63-5.69; CCS: 6.8 % vs. 2.6 %; HR 2.65, 95 % CI 1.92-3.68; p-interaction = 0.11). Secondary outcomes followed a similar trend. After multivariable adjustment, AMI presentation remained significantly associated with increased risk for bleeding at 1 year (HR 1.64, 95 % CI 1.13-2.38, p = 0.01). The ARC-HBR criterion associated with the highest bleeding risk was severe/end-stage chronic kidney disease in AMI and moderate/severe anemia in CCS. The ARC-HBR framework successfully identified AMI and CCS patients with increased risk for bleeding complications at 1 year post-PCI. Figure prepared with BioRender., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) is unknown., Objectives: The purpose of this analysis was to compare 1 vs 3 months of DAPT in HBR patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation., Methods: The XIENCE Short DAPT program comprised 3 prospective, multicenter, single-arm studies of HBR patients treated with a short DAPT course followed by aspirin monotherapy after PCI with a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. In this exploratory analysis, patients who received 1-month DAPT (XIENCE 28 USA and 28 Global) were compared with those on 3-month DAPT (XIENCE 90) using propensity score stratification. Ischemic and bleeding outcomes were assessed between 1 and 12 months after index PCI., Results: A total of 3,652 patients were enrolled and 1,392 patients after 1-month DAPT and 1,972 patients after 3-month DAPT were eligible for the analyses. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction was similar between the 2 groups (7.3% vs 7.5%; difference -0.2%; 95% CI: -2.2% to 1.7%; P = 0.41). The key secondary endpoint of BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 2-5 bleeding was lower with 1-month DAPT compared with 3-month DAPT (7.6% vs 10.0%; difference -2.5%; 95% CI: -4.6% to -0.3%; P = 0.012). Major BARC type 3-5 bleeding did not differ at 12 months (3.6% vs 4.7%; difference -1.1%; 95% CI: -2.6% to 0.4%; P = 0.082), but was lower with 1-month DAPT at 90 days (1.0% vs 2.1%; P = 0.015)., Conclusions: Among HBR patients undergoing PCI, 1 month of DAPT, compared with 3 months of DAPT, was associated with similar ischemic outcomes and lower bleeding risk. (XIENCE 90 Study; NCT03218787; XIENCE 28 USA Study; NCT03815175; XIENCE 28 Global Study; NCT03355742)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The study was sponsored by Abbott. Dr Valgimigli has received grants and personal fees from Terumo; has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFLOW, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Universität Basel Department Klinische Forschung, and Vifor; and has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb SA, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Vesalio, Novartis, Chiesi, and PhaseBio, outside of the submitted work. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has received payments for participation in review activities from CeloNova and St Jude Medical, outside the present work; and his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Bangalore has received grants from Abbott Vascular; and has received personal fees from Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Amgen, and Pfizer. Dr Bhatt has served on the advisory board of Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Janssen, Level Ex, Medscape Cardiology, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, and Regado Biosciences; has served on the Board of Directors of Boston VA Research Institute, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; has served as Chair of the American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee, NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee, and VA CART Research and Publications Committee; has served on Data Monitoring Committees for 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 the 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; 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 coleader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), and WebMD (CME steering committees); has served as Deputy Editor of Clinical Cardiology; has received research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, MyoKardia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, and 89Bio; has received royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwald’s Heart Disease); has served as Site Co-Investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, St Jude Medical (now Abbott), and Svelte; is a Trustee of the American College of Cardiology; and has performed unfunded research for FlowCo, Merck, and Takeda. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has served as national Principal Investigator for Portico (Abbott) and Acurate (Boston Scientific) U.S. investigation device exemption trials; has received personal proctoring fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and has received travel support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Hermiller has received consulting and proctoring fees from Abbott and Edwards; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic. Dr Toelg has received speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and Biotronik. Dr Neumann has received grants and/or personal fees from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Bayer Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Boston Scientific, and Ferrer. Dr Maksoud has served on the Speakers Bureau of Abbott Vascular, Pfizer, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Chehab has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; and has received speakers honoraria and/or personal fees from Edwards, Abbott, and Biotronics. Dr Choi has received consulting fees from Medtronic. Dr Campo has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Medis, SMT, and Siemens. Dr de la Torre Hernandez has received grants/research supports from Abbott Medical, Biosensors, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen; and he has received honoraria or consultation fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Biotronik, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr Kunadian has received personal fees/honoraria from Bayer, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Amgen, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr Varenne has received personal fees/honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biosensors, and AstraZeneca. Dr Vranckx has received grants and/or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Terumo, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer AG, and CLS Behring. Dr Windecker has received research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sinomed, Terumo, and V-Wave; has served as unpaid advisory board member and/or unpaid member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Sinomed, V-Wave, and Xeltis, but has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers; has served as a member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration; and is an unpaid member of the Pfizer Research Award selection committee in Switzerland. Dr Krucoff has received grants and/or personal fees from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Celonova, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and Terumo. Dr Mehran has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, DSI, Insel Gruppe AG, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, Philips, Transverse Medical, and Zoll; has received personal fees from ACC, Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, and SCAI; has received consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, AM-Pharma, Alleviant Medical, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, DSI, Duke University, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Novartis, and Philips; has <1% equity in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, and CONTROLRAD (spouse); and has served on the Scientific Advisory Board for AMA and Biosensors (spouse). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To evaluate the acute and chronic patterns of myocardial injury among patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), and their mid-term outcomes., Methods and Results: Patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who had a hospital encounter within the Mount Sinai Health System (New York City) between 27 February 2020 and 15 October 2020 were evaluated for inclusion. Troponin levels assessed between 72 h before and 48 h after the COVID-19 diagnosis were used to stratify the study population by the presence of acute and chronic myocardial injury, as defined by the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. Among 4695 patients, those with chronic myocardial injury (n = 319, 6.8%) had more comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease and heart failure, while acute myocardial injury (n = 1168, 24.9%) was more associated with increased levels of inflammatory markers. Both types of myocardial injury were strongly associated with impaired survival at 6 months [chronic: hazard ratio (HR) 4.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.44-5.06; acute: HR 4.72, 95% CI 4.14-5.36], even after excluding events occurring in the first 30 days (chronic: HR 3.97, 95% CI 2.15-7.33; acute: HR 4.13, 95% CI 2.75-6.21). The mortality risk was not significantly different in patients with acute as compared with chronic myocardial injury (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94-1.36), except for a worse prognostic impact of acute myocardial injury in patients <65 years of age (P-interaction = 0.043) and in those without coronary artery disease (P-interaction = 0.041)., Conclusion: Chronic and acute myocardial injury represent two distinctive patterns of cardiac involvement among COVID-19 patients. While both types of myocardial injury are associated with impaired survival at 6 months, mortality rates peak in the early phase of the infection but remain elevated even beyond 30 days during the convalescent phase., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Data on ischemic and bleeding outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are scarce. We aimed to evaluate the association between CKD and ischemic and bleeding outcomes in HBR patients who underwent PCI. Among 10,502 patients in the four post-approval registries evaluating patients undergoing PCI, 2,300 patients presented with at least one major or two minor ARC-HBR criteria. CKD was defined as eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . These HBR patients were divided into 3 groups: eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 defined as severe CKD (N = 221), eGFR 30- < 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 defined as moderate CKD (N = 970), eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 defined as no CKD (N = 1,109). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis, and the safety endpoint was major bleeding up to 4-year follow-up. HBR patients with CKD were more often female and had higher rates of comorbidities compared to those without CKD. Reduced renal function was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint (severe CKD vs. moderate CKD vs. no CKD: 30.2% vs. 12.5% vs. 9.1%, P < 0.01) as well as major bleeding (10.3% vs. 8.9% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.03). After adjustment, severe CKD and moderate CKD in HBR patients remained independent predictors for the primary endpoint (HR [95%CI] 2.84 [1.94-4.16], P < 0.01, 1.48 [1.10-2.00], P < 0.01) compared to those with no CKD. However, decreased renal function was no longer significantly associated with major bleeding after adjustment. In conclusions, in HBR patients undergoing PCI, CKD has an important impact on major ischemic events after PCI., (© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of age on the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Background: As the risk for bleeding and ischemic complications after PCI increases with age, the authors conducted a pre-specified analysis of the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial to evaluate the possible benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy according to age., Methods: The TWILIGHT trial enrolled patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents who fulfilled at least 1 clinical and 1 angiographic high-risk criterion. Age ≥65 years was a clinical entry criterion. After 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, event-free patients were randomized to ticagrelor plus placebo or ticagrelor plus aspirin for an additional 12 months. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke., Results: A total of 3,113 patients (47.7%) were ≥65 years of age. At 1 year after randomization, ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (4.5% vs. 8.2%; hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.40 to 0.71) without increasing ischemic events (4.2% vs. 4.4%; hazard ratio: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.35) compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin among patients ≥65 years of age. These findings were consistent in patients <65 years of age with respect to the primary (p interaction  = 0.62) and key secondary (p interaction  = 0.77) endpoints and across different age categories., Conclusions: A strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy following 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced clinically relevant bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin without an increase in ischemic events, irrespective of age., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has participated in review activities for CeloNova and St. Jude Medical; 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, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr. Baber has received speaking honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr. Dangas has received consulting fees and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; has received consulting fees from Biosensors; and previously held stock in Medtronic. Dr. Mehta has received grant support from and serving on an executive committee and as site investigator for AstraZeneca. Dr. Cohen has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Svelte, Corvia, and Ancora; has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Svelte, Corvia, and Ancora. Dr. Krucoff has received consulting fees or honoraria and research grants from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, CeloNova, Medtronic, and OrbusNeich. Dr. Gibson has received research grant support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moliterno has received grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Gibson has received grant support and consulting fees from Angel Medical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Portola Pharmaceuticals; has received consulting fees from The Medicines Company, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Novo Nordisk, WebMD, UpToDate Cardiovascular Medicine, Amarin Pharma, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Merck, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Somahlution, Verreseon, Boston Scientific, Impact Bio, MedImmume, Medtelligence, MicroPort, PERT Consortium, and GE Healthcare; holds equity in nference; serves as chief executive officer of the Baim Institute; and has received grant support, paid to the Baim Institute, from Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Huber has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr. Weisz has received grant support and advisory board fees from and holds equity in Corindus; has received advisory board fees from and holds equity in Filterlex; serves on an advisory board for and holds options in Trisol; and has received grant support from Abbott, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, and RenalGuard. Dr. Oldroyd has received grant support and lecture fees from AstraZeneca. Dr. Escaned has received consulting and lecture fees from Abbott, Philips, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has received lecture fees from Abiomed, Terumo, and Biosensors. Dr. Sharma has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Mehran reports grants from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich; has received personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Medscape/WebMD, Siemens Medical Solutions, PLx Opco dba PLx Pharma, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Medtelligence (Janssen Scientific Affairs), and Janssen Scientific Affairs; has received other compensation from Abbott Laboratories, Abiomed, Bristol Myers Squibb, Claret Medical, Elixir Medical, The Medicines Company, Spectranetics/Philips/Volcano, and Watermark Research Partners; and has received nonfinancial support and other compensation from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. 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.)

Perioperative cardiovascular complications are important causes of morbidity and mortality associated with non-cardiac surgery, particularly in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Although preoperative cardiac risk assessment can facilitate the identification of vulnerable patients and implementation of adequate preventive measures, excessive evaluation might lead to undue resource utilization and surgical delay. Owing to conflicting data, there remains some uncertainty regarding the most beneficial perioperative strategy for patients with CAD. Antithrombotic agents are the cornerstone of secondary prevention of ischaemic events but substantially increase the risk of bleeding. Given that 5-25% of patients undergoing coronary stent implantation require non-cardiac surgery within 2 years, surgery is the most common reason for premature cessation of dual antiplatelet therapy. Perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy, which necessitates concomitant evaluation of the individual thrombotic and bleeding risks related to both clinical and procedural factors, poses a recurring dilemma in clinical practice. Current guidelines do not provide detailed recommendations on this topic, and the optimal approach in these patients is yet to be determined. This Review summarizes the current data guiding preoperative risk stratification as well as periprocedural management of patients with CAD undergoing non-cardiac surgery, including those treated with stents.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and prognostic implications of elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to body mass index (BMI)., Background: Whereas elevated hsCRP predicts adverse clinical outcome after PCI in the general population, the impact of BMI on its prognostic utility remains unclear., Methods: Data from 14,140 patients who underwent PCI between January 2009 and June 2017 at a large tertiary care center were analyzed. Patients were divided into 4 BMI categories: normal (BMI 18.5 to <25 kg/m 2 , n = 2,808), overweight (BMI 25 to <30 kg/m 2 , n = 6,015), obese (BMI 30 to <35 kg/m 2 , n = 3,490), and severely obese (BMI ≥35 kg/m 2 , n = 1,827). Elevated hsCRP was defined as >3 mg/l. The primary endpoint of interest was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; defined as death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) within 1 year after PCI., Results: Elevated hsCRP was present in 18.9%, 23.6%, 33.3%, and 47.7% of the normal, overweight, obese, and severely obese groups, respectively. MACE rates were consistently higher in patients with elevated hsCRP across all BMI categories (normal, 13.4% vs. 8.3%; overweight, 11.2% vs. 7.2%; obese, 10.6% vs. 7.5%; severely obese, 11.9% vs. 6.5%; p < 0.01 for all). After multivariate adjustment, hsCRP elevation remained significantly associated with MACE independent of BMI (hazard ratios: normal, 1.43 [95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 1.95]; overweight, 1.56 [95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 1.88]; obese, 1.40 [95% confidence interval: 1.06 to 1.84]; severely obese, 1.92 [95% confidence interval: 1.35 to 2.75]; p < 0.05 for all)., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing PCI, the prevalence of hsCRP elevation progressively increased with higher BMI. Measurement of hsCRP facilitates prognostic risk assessment for adverse outcome after PCI across a broad range of BMI., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Mehran has received institutional research grants from Abbott Laboratories, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol Myers Squibb, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, DSI, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and OrbusNeich; has received consultant fees from Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Janssen Scientific Affairs, Medscape/WebMD, Medtelligence (Janssen Scientific Affairs), Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Siemens Medical Solutions; has received consultant fees paid to the institution from Abbott Laboratories, Bristol Myers Squibb; is an advisory board member and has received funding paid to the institution from Spectranetics/Philips/Volcano; holds equity (<1%) in Claret Medical and Elixir Medical; has received data and safety monitoring board membership fees paid to the institution from Watermark Research Partners; has performed consulting (no fee) for Idorsia Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and is an associate editor for the American College of Cardiology and the American Medical Association. Dr. Mehran’s spouse is a consultant for Abiomed, The Medicines Company, and Merck. Dr. Dangas has received consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; has received research grants to the institution from Biotronik, Abbott Laboratories; and has equity (entirely divested) in Medtronic. Dr. Baber has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sharma has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Abiomed, and Cardiovascular Systems. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) have been associated with adverse cardiovascular events in epidemiologic studies. Evidence regarding its role in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is scarce. We evaluated consecutive patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents from 2012 to 2017, excluding those with unavailable baseline HDL, age <18 years, presentation with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) or shock, and coexisting neoplastic disease. The final population was stratified according to baseline HDL levels into reduced and nonreduced HDL cohorts, with cut-off value 40 mg/dl in males and 50 mg/dl in females. The primary end point was 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of death, MI, or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Among 10,843 patients included, 6,511 (60%) had reduced HDL, and 4,332 (40%) nonreduced HDL. The rate of 1-year MACE was similar between the 2 groups (7.5% vs 6.6%; p = 0.14). Although mortality and MI rates were comparable, reduced HDL was associated with significantly higher TVR 5.2% vs 4.0%; p = 0.02, a finding that attenuated after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio 1.18, p = 0.14). Sex subgroup analysis included 7,718 (71.2%) males and 3,125 (28.8%) females. Among men, there was a trend toward higher MACE in those with reduced HDL (7.4% vs 6.0%; p = 0.08) mostly driven by TVR (5.4% vs 3.7%; p = 0.005). No association between HDL and 1-year outcomes was evident in females. Assessment for interaction between sex and reduced HDL did not reach statistical significance. In conclusion, reduced baseline HDL was not associated with increased risk of MACE in a contemporary PCI population., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although major advancements in the field of cardiology have allowed for an increasing number of patients to undergo minimally invasive imaging and interventional procedures, contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) continues to be a dreaded complication among patients receiving intravascular contrast media. CI-AKI is characterized by progressive decline in kidney function within a few days of contrast medium administration. Physiological changes resulting from the direct nephrotoxic effect of contrast media on tubular epithelial cells and release of vasoactive molecules have been implicated in creating a state of increased oxidative stress and subsequent ischemic renal cell injury. Over the last several years, preventive strategies involving intravenous hydration, pharmaceutical agents and renal replacement therapies have resulted in lower rates of CI-AKI. However, due to the evolving paradigm of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, several unanswered questions remain. This review highlights the epidemiology, pathogenesis and preventive strategies of CI-AKI.

Background: Antiplatelet therapy is recommended among patients with established atherosclerosis. We compared monotherapy with a P2Y 12 inhibitor versus aspirin for secondary prevention., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, all randomised trials comparing P2Y 12 inhibitor with aspirin monotherapy for secondary prevention in patients with cerebrovascular, coronary, or peripheral artery disease were evaluated for inclusion. On Dec 18, 2019, we searched PubMed, Embase, BioMedCentral, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Additionally, we reviewed references from identified articles and searched abstracts from 2017 to 2019 presented at relevant scientific meetings. Data about year of publication, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size, baseline patients' features including the baseline condition determining study inclusion (ie, cerebrovascular, coronary, or peripheral artery disease), P2Y 12 inhibitor type and dosage, aspirin dosage, endpoint definitions, effect estimates, follow-up duration, and percentage of patients lost to follow-up were collected. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were used as metric of choice for treatment effects with random-effects models. Co-primary endpoints were myocardial infarction and stroke. Key secondary endpoints were all-cause death and vascular death. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I 2 index. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018115037)., Findings: A total of nine randomised trials were identified and included in this study, and 42 108 patients randomly allocated to a P2Y 12 inhibitor (n=21 043) or aspirin (n=21 065) were included in our analyses. Patients who received a P2Y 12 inhibitor had a borderline reduction for the risk of myocardial infarction compared with those who received aspirin (OR 0·81 [95% CI 0·66-0·99]; I 2 =10·9%). Risks of stroke (OR 0·93 [0·82-1·06]; I 2 =34·5%), all-cause death (OR 0·98 [0·89-1·08]; I 2 =0%), and vascular death (OR 0·97 [0·86-1·09]; I 2 =0%) did not differ between patients who received a P2Y 12 inhibitor and those who received aspirin. Similarly, the risk of major bleeding (OR 0·90 [0·74-1·10]; I 2 =3·9%) did not differ between patients who received a P2Y 12 inhibitor and those who received aspirin. The number needed to treat to prevent one myocardial infarction with P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy was 244 patients. Findings were consistent regardless of the type of P2Y 12 inhibitor used., Interpretation: Compared with aspirin monotherapy, P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy is associated with a risk reduction for myocardial infarction and a comparable risk of stroke in the setting of secondary prevention. The benefit of P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy is of debatable clinical relevance, in view of the high number needed to treat to prevent a myocardial infarction and the absence of any effect on all-cause and vascular mortality., Funding: Italian Ministry of Education., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic stenosis (AS) frequently coexist. The presence of CAD has been consistently associated with an impaired prognosis in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement during short- and long-term follow-up. Accordingly, current guidelines recommend coronary revascularisation of all significant stenoses in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement. Conversely, the management of concomitant CAD in patients with severe AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still a matter of debate. The aim of this review article is to provide an overview on the role of coronary revascularisation in TAVI patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure: GGS has received an institutional research grant from Boston Scientific, and speaker or consultant fees from B.Braun, Biosensors, and Boston Scientific.

Objectives: This study compared clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies among patients presenting with low ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) according to the assigned treatment modality., Background: The optimal treatment modality for patients with LEF-LG severe AS and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring revascularization is unknown., Methods: Of 1,551 patients, 204 with LEF-LG severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), ejection fraction <50%, and mean gradient <40 mm Hg) were allocated to medical therapy (MT) (n = 44), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 52), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n = 108). CAD complexity was assessed using the SYNTAX score (SS) in 187 of 204 patients (92%). The primary endpoint was mortality at 1 year., Results: LEF-LG severe AS patients undergoing SAVR were more likely to undergo complete revascularization (17 of 52, 35%) compared with TAVR (8 of 108, 8%) and MT (0 of 44, 0%) patients (p < 0.001). Compared with MT, both SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]: 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.38; p < 0.001) and TAVR (adj HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.52; p < 0.001) improved survival at 1 year. In TAVR and SAVR patients, CAD severity was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular death (no CAD: 12.2% vs. low SS [0 to 22], 15.3% vs. high SS [>22], 31.5%; p = 0.037) at 1 year. Compared with no CAD/complete revascularization, TAVR and SAVR patients undergoing incomplete revascularization had significantly higher 1-year cardiovascular death rates (adj HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.07 to 7.36; p = 0.037)., Conclusions: Among LEF-LG severe AS patients, SAVR and TAVR improved survival compared with MT. CAD severity was associated with worse outcomes and incomplete revascularization predicted 1-year cardiovascular mortality among TAVR and SAVR patients., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)