Search

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a class of anti-diabetic agents that block the reabsorption of glucose in the proximal convoluted tubule of the nephron, thereby contributing to glycosuria and lowering blood glucose levels. SGLT2 inhibitors have been associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes, including a reduced risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure. Recently, DAPA-HF and EMPEROR REDUCED trials showed the beneficial cardiovascular effect of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with consistently reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) regardless of the presence of diabetes. Moreover, some exploratory studies suggested that these drugs improve Left Ventricular (LV) systolic function and oppose LV adverse remodeling in patients with HFrEF. However, the exact mechanisms that mediated for this benefit are not fully understood. Beyond glycemic control, enhanced natriuresis, increased erythropoiesis, improved endothelial function, changes in myocardial metabolism, anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative properties may all play an active role in SGLT2 inhibitors' cardiovascular benefits. A deep understanding of the pathophysiological interplay is key to define which HF phenotype could benefit more from SGLT2 inhibitors. Current clinical evidence on the comparison of different HF etiologies is limited to posthoc subgroup analysis of DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-REDUCED, which showed similar outcomes in patients with or without ischemic HF. On the other hand, in earlier studies of patients suffering from diabetes, rates of classic ischemic endpoints, such as myocardial infarction, stroke or coronary revascularization, did not differ between patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors or placebo. The aim of this review is to discuss whether SGLT2 inhibitors may improve prognosis in patients with ischemic HF, not only in terms of reducing re-hospitalizations and improving left ventricular function but also by limiting coronary artery disease progression and ischemic burden.

There is a paucity of data on the prognostic value of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels in diabetic and nondiabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).All patients with known baseline hsCRP undergoing PCI at a single tertiary care centre from 2010 to 2017 were included. High hsCRP was defined as3 mg/L. Known causes of elevated hsCRP levels and hsCRP10 mg/L represented exclusion criteria. The 1-year primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and target-vessel revascularisation (TVR).Among a total of 11,979 patients included, high hsCRP levels were observed in 24.7% of patients without diabetes and 29.8% of patients with diabetes (P0.001). Both diabetics and nondiabetics with high hsCRP levels had increased rates of MACE compared with their counterparts with low hsCRP (diabetics: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.58, 95% CI 1.27-1.96; nondiabetics: aHR 1.45, 95% CI 1.13-1.86; P interaction = 0.981) primarily driven by increased rates all-cause deaths (diabetics: aHR 2.32, 95% CI 1.42-3.80; nondiabetics: aHR 3.14, 95% CI 1.74-5.65; P interaction = 0.415). Although high hsCRP levels were associated with increased rates of TVR (aHR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.75) and MI (aHR 1.86, 95% CI 1.18-2.93) only in patients with diabetes, no significant interactions were observed between inflammation and diabetes (P interaction = 0.749 and 0.602, respectively).Patients undergoing PCI with high levels of hsCRP, defined as3 mg/L, have worse ischemic outcomes regardless of diabetes status.

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.

ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is one of the cardiac emergencies whose management has been most challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients presenting with the "lethal combo" of STEMI and concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection have faced dramatic issues related to the need for self-isolation, systemic inflammation with multi-organ disease and difficulties to obtain timely diagnosis and treatment. The interplay between these and other factors has partly neutralized the major advances in STEMI care achieved in the last decades, significantly impairing prognosis in these patients. In the present review article, we will provide an overview on mechanisms of myocardial injury, specific clinical and angiographic characteristics and contemporary management in different settings of STEMI patients with COVID-19, alongside the inherent implications in terms of in-hospital mortality and short-term clinical outcomes.

Background A polymer-free biolimus-eluting stent (PF-BES) and a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) recently showed similar clinical profiles and appear to be competing options in specific clinical settings of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether they perform similarly also in complex procedural settings as coronary bifurcation lesions remains unaddressed. Methods All consecutive patients undergoing coronary bifurcation PCI with PF-BES or the new iteration of the ZES from three large multicenter real-world registries were included. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and stent thrombosis (ST). Multiple analyses to adjust for baseline differences were carried out including propensity-score matching, propensity-score stratification and inverse-probability-weighting. Outcomes are reported according to Cox proportional hazard models censored at 400-day follow-up. Results 1169 patients treated with PF-BES (n = 440) or ZES (n = 729) on the main branch of a coronary bifurcation lesion were included (mean age 69 ± 11 years, 75.4% male, 53.8% acute coronary syndrome at presentation, 26.6% left main bifurcation, median dual antiplatelet therapy duration 12 [range 12–12] months). MACE, all-cause death, TLR and ST tended towards non-statistically higher rates with the PF-BES as compared to the ZES. Higher MI and target vessel revascularization occurrence was observed with PF-BES. Conclusions In this large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing coronary bifurcation PCI, the occurrence of MACE was non-statistically different with the use of PF-BES and ZES devices. However, differences favoring the ZES device that may entail clinical relevance were observed. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and explore whether they remain valid when a short dual antiplatelet therapy is adopted.

Abstract: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are a relatively novel drug class that most cardiologists are becoming familiar with. By contrasting glucose reabsorption in the proximal convoluted tubule of the nephron, SGLT2 inhibition results in glycosuria with improved glycemic control. Although originally introduced as anti-diabetic medications, the cardiovascular effects of SGLT2i have progressively emerged, leading them to become one of the four pillars for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) according to the 2021 guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology. Also, two recent randomized trials have demonstrated SGLT2i as the first compounds with proven prognostic impact in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), setting a milestone in the treatment for this condition. While the exact pathogenic mechanisms mediating the substantial reduction in cardiovascular death and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations are still controversial, there is growing clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of SGLT2i in various subsets of patients with HF. As known, heart failure is a complex and heterogeneous clinical syndrome with a magnitude of phenotypes and a variety of underlying hemodynamic and physiological aspects which cannot be fully incorporated into the traditional left ventricular ejection fraction based classification adopted in clinical trials. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the cardiovascular benefits and indications of SGLT2i across different HF patterns and to highlight current gaps in knowledge that should be addressed by future research.

Evidence about the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with left ventricular thrombosis (LVT) are emerging. The aim of our study was to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence concerning the clinical effects of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in LVT treatment.Systematic search of studies evaluating DOACs versus VKAs use in patients with LVT was performed on May 11th, 2021. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Odds ratios (OR) with relative 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as measures of effect estimates. The primary efficacy and safety endpoint were ischemic stroke and any bleeding, respectively. Secondary endpoints were LVT resolution, systemic embolism, major bleeding, hemorrhagic stroke, and all cause death.Twenty studies were included in the meta-analysis: 1,391 patients were treated with DOACs and 1,534 with VKAs. A significant reduction in the risk of ischemic stroke (OR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.45-0.98, P = 0.048, number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] 22 [95% CI 15-43]) and any bleeding (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.89, P = 0.009, NNTB 26 [95% CI 16-80]) was observed with DOACs compared to VKAs. No statistically significant difference was observed among the two treatment arms for the secondary endpoints.Compared to VKAs, DOACs are associated with a reduced risk of ischemic stroke and bleeding. In light of these findings, and the practical advantages of DOACs, additional large scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the benefits of DOACs in patients with LVT.

Background GLP1-receptor agonists (GLP1-ra) are recently developed anti-diabetic drugs which have shown promising results in phase-3 cardiovascular (CV) outcomes trials in diabetic patients, demonstrating a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, possibly, in heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. However, whether these medications improve such outcomes in patients with a history of HF remains unknown. Methods All randomized, placebo-controlled trials of GLP1-ra (and predefined/post-hoc analysis) reporting CV outcomes stratified by HF history were searched in Pubmed from inception to August 31st, 2022. The primary outcome was HF hospitalizations. Secondary outcomes included MACE, CV death and a composite of HF hospitalization and CV death. The analysis was performed after stratifying for HF history. Odds-ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CIs) were used as effect estimated and calculated via a random-effects model. P for interaction between subgroups were calculated via meta-regression analysis and a level of p Results Data from 6 trials and a total of 40300 patients (n=20127 GLP1-ra group, n=20173 placebo group) were included. GLP1-ra reduced HF hospitalizations in patients without HF history (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.99) but had neutral effect on those with previous HF (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88–1.22, p-interaction=0.089). CV death was also reduced by intervention only in the group without history of HF (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71–0.92), as well as the composite of HF hospitalizations and CV death (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72–0.90). Indeed, no difference between treatment arms was found in the HF group for CV death (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82–1.18, p-interaction=0.18) and the composite of HF hospitalization or CV death (OR 1.02 95%CI 0.89–1.18, p-interaction=0.073). MACE reduction was similar in patients with (OR 0.87 95% CI 0.72–1.06) and without HF history (OR 0.84 95% CI 0.76–0.93, p-interaction = 0.75). Conclusion GLP1-ra do not reduce HF hospitalization and CV death in patients with history of HF, as the benefit on cardiovascular outcomes provided by this anti-diabetic class of drugs seems to be mainly limited to patients without HF history. Future studies focused on HF patients are needed to confirm such findings and clarify the limited efficacy of GLP1-ra in this relevant group of patients.

Background Recent evidence has rendered percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) a valuable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Nevertheless, the optimal management and patients selection is still subject to discussion Methods We retrospectively included 431 patients treated with PCI and 324 patients treated with CABG with the primary objective of comparing procedural failure according to revascularization strategy. Secondary endpoints were post procedural and clinically relevant myocardial infarction, in-hospital stroke, major bleeding defined according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, death, and 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results There was no observed difference in the rates of procedure failure in patients who received PCI compared to patients who received CABG (4.6% vs 3.7%, respectively) odds ratio [OR] 1.26; (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.58-2.9, p= 0.52.) There was no significant difference in the defined ischemic outcome for PCI vs CABG (0.9% vs 2.4%, respectively) OR 0.37; (95% CI 0.08-1.4), P = 0.09. There was a mild increase in periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) after PCI (4.2% vs 1.5%) compared to CABG; (OR = 2.8; 95% CI 0.99-9.8, P = 0.034). On the contrary there was a higher risk of major bleeding and transfusions in the patients who had been treated with CABG who has a clinical profile suited for PCI. Conclusions PCI did not significantly increase the risk for procedural failure or ischemic events compared to CABG in patients with LM CAD. The higher risk for post-procedural MI after PCI was offset by a higher risk for major bleeding events and transfusion requirements in those undergoing CABG, especially for those who were clinically suited for PCI.

Background Potent P2Y12 inhibitors are recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), although the optimal antithrombotic strategy should be tailored based on patients thrombotic and hemorrhagic risk profile. We evaluated if the benefits associated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are similar in patients with different thrombotic risk profiles. Methods PROMETHEUS was a multicenter observational study comparing prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing PCI. Patients were defined at high thrombotic risk if presenting with a clinical and a procedural risk feature. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using propensity-stratified analysis and with multivariable Cox regression. Results Among 16,065 patients, 4,293 were defined at high and 11,772 at low-to-moderate thrombotic risk. Patients receiving prasugrel had less comorbidities and risk factors than those treated with clopidogrel, both in the high and low-to-moderate thrombotic risk strata. High thrombotic risk patients had increased rates of ischemic and bleeding events at 90-day and 1-year follow-up. Patients treated with prasugrel had a lower adjusted 1-year risk of MACE (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96), irrespective of their thrombotic risk (pinteraction =0.32). Stratifying the study population by number of risk factors there was a significant interaction (pinteraction =0.026) for a greater reduction in MACE with prasugrel among patients with ≤1 thrombotic risk factor. The risk of clinically significant bleeding was similar in patients treated with prasugrel and clopidogrel. Conclusions Patients with ACS at high thrombotic risk who undergo PCI are at increased risk of adverse events at 1 year. Prasugrel, mainly reserved to patients with less comorbidities, reduced the risk of ischemic events both in patients at high and low-to-moderate thrombotic risk as compared with clopidogrel.

Background Recent evidence has rendered percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) a valuable alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Nevertheless, the optimal management and patients selection is still subject to discussion Methods We retrospectively included 431 patients treated with PCI and 324 patients treated with CABG with the primary objective of comparing procedural failure according to revascularization strategy. Secondary endpoints were post procedural and clinically relevant myocardial infarction, in-hospital stroke, major bleeding defined according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, death, and 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results There was no observed difference in the rates of procedure failure in patients who received PCI compared to patients who received CABG (4.6% vs 3.7%, respectively) odds ratio [OR] 1.26; (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.58-2.9, p= 0.52.) There was no significant difference in the defined ischemic outcome for PCI vs CABG (0.9% vs 2.4%, respectively) OR 0.37; (95% CI 0.08-1.4), P = 0.09. There was a mild increase in periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) after PCI (4.2% vs 1.5%) compared to CABG; (OR = 2.8; 95% CI 0.99-9.8, P = 0.034). On the contrary there was a higher risk of major bleeding and transfusions in the patients who had been treated with CABG who has a clinical profile suited for PCI. Conclusions PCI did not significantly increase the risk for procedural failure or ischemic events compared to CABG in patients with LM CAD. The higher risk for post-procedural MI after PCI was offset by a higher risk for major bleeding events and transfusion requirements in those undergoing CABG, especially for those who were clinically suited for PCI.

Long term survival and its determinants after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) on Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery (ULMCA) remain to be appraised. In 9 European Centers 470 consecutive patients performing PCI on ULMCA between 2002 and 2005 were retrospectively enrolled. Survival from all cause and cardiovascular (CV) death were the primary end points, while their predictors at multivariate analysis the secondary ones. Among the overall cohort 81.5% of patients were male and mean age was 66 ± 12 years. After 15 years (IQR 13 to 16), 223 patients (47%) died, 81 (17.2%) due to CV etiology. At multivariable analysis, older age (HR 1.06, 95%CI 1.02 to 1.11), LVEF < 35% (HR 2.97, 95%CI 1.24 to 7.15) and number of vessels treated during the index PCI (HR 1.75, 95%CI 1.12 to 2.72) were related to all-cause mortality, while only LVEF

The global burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) is constantly increasing, necessitating novel and effective therapeutic options. Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been introduced in clinical practice as glucose-lowering medications. However, they have recently gained prominence for their potential to exert substantial cardiorenal protection and are being evaluated in large clinical trials including patients with type 2 diabetes and normoglycemic adults. In this review we present up-to-date available evidence in a pathophysiology-directed manner from cell to bedside. Preclinical and clinical data regarding a conceivable antiarrhythmic effect of SGLT2 inhibitors are beginning to accumulate. Herein we comprehensively present data that explore the potential pathophysiological link between SGLT2 inhibitors and AF. With regard to clinical data, no randomized controlled trials evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors effects on AF as a pre-specified endpoint are available. However, data from randomized controlled trial post-hoc analysis as well as observational studies point to a possible beneficial effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on AF. Meta-analyses addressing this question report inconsistent results and the real magnitude of AF prevention by SGLT2 inhibition remains unclear. Still, while (i) pathophysiologic mechanisms involved in AF might be favorably affected by SGLT2 inhibitors and (ii) emerging, yet inconsistent, clinical data imply that SGLT2 inhibitor-mediated cardiorenal protection could also exert antiarrhythmic effects, the argument of whether these novel drugs will reduce AF burden is unsettled and mandates appropriately designed and adequately sized randomized controlled studies.

Background Women present specific risks for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) but there are scarce sex-based analysis. The aim of this study was to explore the risk of vascular/bleeding complications in females vs. males that underwent TAVI and the impact of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. Methods TRITAVI-Women is a retrospective analysis in 13 European institutions. Propensity score based on pairs of different sex was performed and global outcomes, vascular/bleeding risk factors were determined. Afterwards, the female population of the study was divided into two groups according to the need of RBC transfusion and the risk for mortality, AKI, MI, stroke at 30-days and at 1-year were compared as a combined endpoint (primary endpoint) and separately (secondary endpoints). Results The global study population included 5837 patients. Females presented more advanced NYHA class, chronic kidney disease, and baseline anemia. Vascular/bleeding complications and RBC transfusion were more common in women. However, 1-year mortality was lower for women in the matched cohort (8.1% vs.10.3%, p = 0.028). The need for RBC transfusion was an independent predictor of higher incidence of the primary endpoint at 30-day and 1-year. The main predictor of RBC transfusion in women was the presence of baseline anemia. Conclusions Women present lower risk of mortality than men at 1-year follow up, but not at 30-day due to higher rates of vascular/bleeding complications. RBC transfusion was also more often required in women and was an independent predictor or poorer outcomes. The treatment of pre-existing anemia before TAVI might improve the short-term results in women.

The ACC/TVT score is a specific predictive model of in-hospital mortality for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to test its predictive accuracy in comparison with standard surgical risk models (Logistic Euroscore, Euroscore II, and STS-PROM) in the population of TAVI patients included in the multicenter RISPEVA (Registro Italiano GISE sull'impianto di Valvola Aortica Percutanea) registry. The study cohort included 3293 patients who underwent TAVI between 2008 and 2019. The 4 risk scores were calculated for all patients. For all scores, the capability to predict 30-day mortality was assessed by means of several analyses testing calibration and discrimination. The ACC/TVT score showed moderate discrimination, with a C-statistics for 30-day mortality of 0.63, not significantly different from the standard surgical risk models. The ACC/TVT score demonstrated, in contrast, better calibration compared with the other scores, as proved by a greater correspondence between estimated probabilities and the actual observations. However, when the ACC/TVT score was tested in the subgroup of patients treated in a more contemporary period (from 2016 on), it revealed a slight tendency to lose discrimination and to overestimate mortality risk. In conclusion, in comparison with the standard surgical risk models, the ACC/TVT score demonstrated better prediction accuracy for estimation of 30-day mortality in terms of calibration. Nevertheless, its predictive reliability remained suboptimal and tended to worsen in patients treated more recently.

OBJECTIVE It is still debated if benefits associated with radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are due to the access site selection itself, operator expertise or other underlying mechanisms. METHODS We searched PubMed, Embase, and meeting abstracts for randomized trials comparing radial versus femoral access site for coronary angiography and PCI. Primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were stroke and myocardial infarction (MI). This study is registered with PROSPERO. RESULTS We identified 31 trials (30,096 patients, PCI performed in 21,225 patients). Radial compared to femoral access was associated with a significant risk reduction in major bleeding (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.42-0.66, I2 = 3.3%). Findings were consistent regardless of clinical characteristics or whether coronary angiography was performed with or without PCI. The benefit of radial access was significantly increased in studies published before 2010 and in patients with chronic coronary syndrome. Risk for stroke (OR 1.11, 95%CI 0.76-1.64, I2 = 0%) and MI (OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.79-1.04, I2 = 0%) were comparable between the groups. Risk for mortality and vascular complications were significantly lower with radial than femoral access. CONCLUSION In patients undergoing coronary angiography and PCI, radial access is associated with a significant risk reduction in bleeding, vascular complications, and mortality compared to femoral access. The risk of stroke or MI were comparable in patients with radial or femoral access.

Graphical abstract, Highlights • Colchicine is among the oldest drug molecules in medical history. • Clinicians should always check for drug to drug interactions and modify colchicine’s dose according to published guidelines. • Beyond known indications (e.g. pericarditis, gout), current evidence implies favorable colchicine effects in CAD, stroke and even in COVID19., Colchicine’s medical evolution is historically bound to the Mediterranean basin, since remarkable researchers from this region underscored its valuable properties. With the passing of years colchicine became an essential pharmaceutical substance for the treatment of rheumatologic and cardiovascular diseases. In light of recent findings, the therapeutic value of colchicine has grown. In clinical practice, colchicine remains underutilized in view of its proven efficacy and safety. Its complex pharmacokinetics and multifaceted anti-inflammatory role remain under investigation. The current review addresses the safe administration of colchicine in view of key drug to drug interactions. Finally, we are briefly presenting colchicine’s future potential applications.

The coronary sinus (CS) Reducer is a novel device designed for the management of patients with severe angina symptoms refractory to optimal medical therapy and not amenable to further revascularization. Aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and the safety of the CS Reducer device in a real-world, multicenter, and country-level cohort of patients presenting with refractory angina pectoris. The study included patients affected by refractory angina pectoris who underwent CS Reducer implantation in 16 centers. Clinical follow-up was carried as per each center's protocol. One hundred eighty-seven patients were included. Technical and procedural success were achieved in 98% and 95%, respectively. Minor peri-procedural complications were recorded in 8 patients. During a median follow-up of 18.4 months, 135 (82.8%) patients demonstrated at least 1 CCS class reduction after Reducer implantation, and 80 (49%) patients at least 2 CCS class reduction. Mean CCS class improved from 3.05 ± 0.53 at baseline to 1.63 ± 0.98 at follow-up (p < 0.001). Treatment benefit was also reflected in a significant improvement in quality of life scores and in a reduction of the mean number of anti-ischemic drugs prescribed for patient. In conclusion, in this multicenter, country-level study, the implantation of CS Reducer in patients with refractory angina pectoris resulted to be safe and effective in reducing of angina pectoris and improving quality of life.

Background: Antithrombotic/anticoagulation effects of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are dose-dependent. However, recent observations suggest that administering lower dose DOACs may better protect against all-cause mortality. We investigated whether, in patients with established atherosclerosis, DOAC dose selection would affect the risk of all-cause mortality. Methods: We performed a structured literature research for controlled trials allowing random assignment to a lower dose DOAC, a higher dose DOAC, or control therapy in patients with established atherosclerosis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) of all-cause mortality in lower and higher dose DOACs versus control therapy were estimated using a random-effect model. Results: Atherosclerosis manifested as acute coronary syndrome (n=17,220), stable coronary (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) (n=27,395) or CAD associated with atrial fibrillation (n=4,510). Antithrombotic doses of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg or 5.0 mg BID) or dabigatran (50 mg, 75 mg, 110 mg, or 150 mg, BID) were tested in three trials versus single or dual antiplatelet control therapy, whereas anticoagulation doses of edoxaban (30 mg or 60 OD) were tested versus warfarin in one trial. Compared to control, patients receiving lower dose (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.89, pI²=0%), but not those receiving higher dose DOACs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87-1.05, p=0.3074, I²=0%), had a significant reduction of all-cause mortality. Benefit from lower dose DOACs remained after sensitivity analysis or direct comparison with higher dose DOACs (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.93, p=0.0009, I²=0%). Conclusions: Within antithrombotic/anticoagulation regimens of DOAC administration, selection of lower dose appears to protect from all-cause mortality in patients with established atherosclerosis.

Objectives This study sought to evaluate the incidence and causes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at different time periods following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic stenosis frequently coexist, but the optimal management of CAD following TAVR remains incompletely elucidated. Methods Patients undergoing unplanned PCI after TAVR were retrospectively included in an international multicenter registry. Results Between July 2008 and March 2019, a total of 133 patients (0.9%; from a total cohort of 15,325) underwent unplanned PCI after TAVR (36.1% after balloon-expandable bioprosthesis, 63.9% after self-expandable bioprosthesis). The median time to PCI was 191 days (interquartile range: 59 to 480 days). The daily incidence of PCI was highest during the first week after TAVR and then declined over time. Overall, the majority of patients underwent PCI due to an acute coronary syndrome, and specifically 32.3% had non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 15.4% had unstable angina, 9.8% had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and 2.2% had cardiac arrest. However, chronic coronary syndromes are the main indication beyond 2 years. PCI success was reported in almost all cases (96.6%), with no significant differences between patients treated with balloon-expandable and self-expandable bioprostheses (100% vs. 94.9%; p = 0.150). Conclusions Unplanned PCI after TAVR is rare, with an incidence declining over time after TAVR. The main indication to PCI is acute coronary syndrome in the first 2 years after TAVR, and thereafter chronic coronary syndromes become prevalent. Unplanned PCIs are frequently successfully performed after TAVR, with no apparent differences between balloon-expandable and self-expandable bioprostheses. (Revascularization After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation [REVIVAL]; NCT03283501 )

Objective To investigate the impact of ischemic and bleeding risk factors on long-term clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents. Background Second-generation drug-eluting stents have substantially improved outcomes after PCI in the general population; however, DM patients continue to experience high rates of ischemic and bleeding complications. Methods DM patients from the pooled XIENCE V registry were divided into high or low bleeding and ischemic risk groups (HBR, LBR, HIR, and LIR) based on established bleeding (age ≥ 75 years; chronic kidney disease; anemia; prior stroke; oral anticoagulation; thrombocytopenia; prior major bleeding) and ischemic (acute coronary syndrome; prior myocardial infarction [MI]; ≥3 stents implanted; ≥3 vessels treated; ≥3 lesions treated; stent length > 60 mm; bifurcation treated with ≥2 stents; chronic total occlusion) risk factors. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, MI, or stent thrombosis) and major bleeding at 4-year follow-up. Results A total of 3,704 DM patients were divided into four groups (21.5% LBR/LIR; 39.0% LBR/HIR; 15.6% HBR/LIR; 23.9% HBR/HIR). Compared with LBR/LIR patients, those at HBR/HIR and HBR/LIR had a significantly higher risk of MACE (HR (95% CI) 2.7 (1.9-3.9) and 2.2 (1.5-3.2), respectively) and major bleeding (2.7 (1.6-4.8) and 2.6 (1.4-4.7), respectively), while LBR/HIR patients did not. Conclusions Among DM patients undergoing PCI, presence of bleeding risk factors was associated with a higher risk of both ischemic and bleeding events, whereas commonly used features of ischemic risk did not impact long-term clinical outcomes.

ObjectiveRisk stratification is crucial to optimise treatment strategies in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the impact on mortality of an early assessment of cardiac biomarkers in patients with COVID-19.MethodsHumanitas Clinical and Research Hospital (Rozzano-Milan, Lombardy, Italy) is a tertiary centre that has been converted to the management of COVID-19. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were entered in a dedicated database for cohort observational analyses. Outcomes were stratified according to elevated levels (ie, above the upper level of normal) of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-TnI), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) or both measured within 24 hours after hospital admission. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.ResultsA total of 397 consecutive patients with COVID-19 were included up to 1 April 2020. At the time of hospital admission, 208 patients (52.4%) had normal values for cardiac biomarkers, 90 (22.7%) had elevated both hs-TnI and BNP, 59 (14.9%) had elevated only BNP and 40 (10.1%) had elevated only hs-TnI. The rate of mortality was higher in patients with elevated hs-TnI (22.5%, OR 4.35, 95% CI 1.72 to 11.04), BNP (33.9%, OR 7.37, 95% CI 3.53 to 16.75) or both (55.6%, OR 18.75, 95% CI 9.32 to 37.71) as compared with those without elevated cardiac biomarkers (6.25%). A multivariate analysis identified concomitant elevation of both hs-TnI and BNP as a strong independent predictor of all-cause mortality (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.06 to 9.93).ConclusionsAn early detection of elevated hs-TnI and BNP predicts mortality in patients with COVID-19. Cardiac biomarkers should be systematically assessed in patients with COVID-19 at the time of hospital admission in order to optimise risk stratification.

Aims Whether pulmonary artery (PA) dimension and coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, as assessed by chest computed tomography (CT), are associated with myocardial injury in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not known. The aim of this study was to explore the risk factors for myocardial injury and death and to investigate whether myocardial injury has an independent association with all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19. Methods and Results This is a single-centre cohort study including consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 undergoing chest CT on admission. Myocardial injury was defined as high-sensitivity troponin I >20 ng/L on admission. A total of 332 patients with a median follow-up of 12 days were included. There were 68 (20.5%) deaths; 123 (37%) patients had myocardial injury. PA diameter was higher in patients with myocardial injury compared with patients without myocardial injury [29.0 (25th–75th percentile, 27–32) mm vs. 27.7 (25–30) mm, P < 0.001). PA diameter was independently associated with an increased risk of myocardial injury [adjusted odds ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.19, P = 0.01] and death [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.09, 95% CI 1.02–1.17, P = 0.01]. Compared with patients without myocardial injury, patients with myocardial injury had a lower prevalence of a CAC score of zero (25% vs. 55%, P < 0.001); however, the CAC score did not emerge as a predictor of myocardial injury by multivariable logistic regression. Myocardial injury was independently associated with an increased risk of death by multivariable Cox regression (adjusted HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.27–3.96, P = 0.005). Older age, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, and lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio on admission were other independent predictors for both myocardial injury and death. Conclusions An increased PA diameter, as assessed by chest CT, is an independent risk factor for myocardial injury and mortality in patients with COVID-19. Myocardial injury is independently associated with an approximately two-fold increased risk of death.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses an unprecedented challenge to healthcare worldwide. The infection can be life threatening and require intensive care treatment. The transmission of the disease poses a risk to both patients and healthcare workers. The number of patients requiring hospital admission and intensive care may overwhelm health systems and negatively affect standard care for patients presenting with conditions needing emergency interventions. This position statements aims to assist cardiologists in the invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. To that end, we assembled a panel of interventional cardiologists and acute cardiac care specialists appointed by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and from the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACVC) and included the experience from the first and worst affected areas in Europe. Modified diagnostic and treatment algorithms are proposed to adapt evidence-based protocols for this unprecedented challenge. Various clinical scenarios, as well as management algorithms for patients with a diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 infection, presenting with ST- and non-ST-segment elevation ACS are described. In addition, we address the need for re-organization of ACS networks, with redistribution of hub and spoke hospitals, as well as for in-hospital reorganization of emergency rooms and cardiac units, with examples coming from multiple European countries. Furthermore, we provide a guidance to reorganization of catheterization laboratories and, importantly, measures for protection of healthcare providers involved with invasive procedures.

Summary Background Antiplatelet therapy is recommended among patients with established atherosclerosis. We compared monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor versus aspirin for secondary prevention. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, all randomised trials comparing P2Y12 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), P2Y12 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 I2 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 P2Y12 inhibitor (n=21 043) or aspirin (n=21 065) were included in our analyses. Patients who received a P2Y12 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]; I2=10·9%). Risks of stroke (OR 0·93 [0·82–1·06]; I2=34·5%), all-cause death (OR 0·98 [0·89–1·08]; I2=0%), and vascular death (OR 0·97 [0·86–1·09]; I2=0%) did not differ between patients who received a P2Y12 inhibitor and those who received aspirin. Similarly, the risk of major bleeding (OR 0·90 [0·74–1·10]; I2=3·9%) did not differ between patients who received a P2Y12 inhibitor and those who received aspirin. The number needed to treat to prevent one myocardial infarction with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was 244 patients. Findings were consistent regardless of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor used. Interpretation Compared with aspirin monotherapy, P2Y12 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 P2Y12 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.

OBJECTIVES We aimed to evaluate the use of bare metal stent (BMS) implantation in current percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) era, focusing on indications for use and clinical outcomes. BACKGROUND Limited data on BMS usage in current clinical practice are available. METHODS All patients who underwent PCI with at least one BMS implantation in 18 Italian centers from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017, were included in our registry. Rates of BMS use and reasons for BMS implantations were reported for the overall study period and for each year. Primary outcomes were mortality, bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium-BARC and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction-TIMI non-CABG definitions), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as the composite of all-cause and cardiac death, any myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or any stent thrombosis. RESULTS Among 58,879 patients undergoing PCI in the study period, 2,117 (3.6%) patients (mean age 73 years, 69.7% males, 73.3% acute coronary syndrome) were treated with BMS implantation (2,353 treated lesions). The rate of BMS implantation progressively decreased from 10.1% (2013) to 0.3% (2017). Main reasons for BMS implantation were: ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (23.1%), advanced age (24.4%), and physician's perception of high-bleeding risk (34.0%). At a mean follow-up of 2.2 ± 1.5 years, all-cause and cardiac mortality were 25.6 and 12.7%, respectively; MACE rate was 35.3%, any bleeding rate was 13.0% (BARC 3-5 bleeding 6.3%, TIMI non-CABG major bleeding 6.1%). CONCLUSION In a large, contemporary, real-world, multicenter registry, BMS use progressively reduced over the last 5 years. Main reasons for BMS implantation were STEMI, advanced age, and physician's perception of high-bleeding risk. High rates of mortality and MACE were observed in this real-world high-risk population.