Search

Abstract Electrophysiological mapping and ablation techniques are increasingly used to diagnose and treat many types of supraventricular and ventricular tachycardias. These procedures require an intimate knowledge of intracardiac anatomy and their use has led to a renewed interest in visualization of specific structures. This has required collaborative efforts from imaging as well as electrophysiology experts. Classical imaging techniques may be unable to visualize structures involved in arrhythmia mechanisms and therapy. Novel methods, such as intracardiac echocardiography and three-dimensional echocardiography, have been refined and these technological improvements have opened new perspectives for more effective and accurate imaging during electrophysiology procedures. Concurrently, visualization of these structures noticeably improved our ability to identify intracardiac structures. The aim of this review is to provide electrophysiologists with an overview of recent insights into the structure of the heart obtained with intracardiac echocardiography and to indicate to the echo-specialist which structures are potentially important for the electrophysiologist.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcome of paclitaxel eluting stents (PES) versus sirolimus eluting stents (SES) for the treatment of acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: The first 136 consecutive patients treated exclusively with PES in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction in this single centre registry were prospectively clinically assessed at 30 days and one year. They were compared with 186 consecutive patients treated exclusively with SES in the preceding period. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral centre. RESULTS: At 30 days, the rate of all cause mortality and reinfarction was similar between groups (6.5% v 6.6% for SES and PES, respectively, p = 1.0). A significant difference in target vessel revascularisation (TVR) was seen in favour of SES (1.1% v 5.1% for PES, p = 0.04). This was driven by stent thrombosis (n = 4), especially in the bifurcation stenting (n = 2). At one year, no significant differences were seen between groups, with no late thrombosis and 1.5% in-stent restenosis (needing TVR) in PES versus no reinterventions in SES (p = 0.2). One year survival free of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was 90.2% for SES and 85% for PES (p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were seen in MACE-free survival at one year between SES and PES for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with very low rates of reintervention for restenosis. Bifurcation stenting in acute myocardial infarction should, if possible, be avoided because of the increased risk of stent thrombosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether the treatment efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) depends on the type of P2Y12 inhibitor., Objective: To assess the risks and benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy or clopidogrel monotherapy compared with standard DAPT after PCI., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, TCTMD, and the European Society of Cardiology website were searched from inception to September 10, 2023, without language restriction., Study Selection: Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT on adjudicated end points in patients without indication to oral anticoagulation undergoing PCI., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Patient-level data provided by each trial were synthesized into a pooled dataset and analyzed using a 1-step mixed-effects model. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary objective was to determine noninferiority of ticagrelor or clopidogrel monotherapy vs DAPT on the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the per-protocol analysis with a 1.15 margin for the hazard ratio (HR). Key secondary end points were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (NACE), including the primary end point and major bleeding., Results: Analyses included 6 randomized trials including 25 960 patients undergoing PCI, of whom 24 394 patients (12 403 patients receiving DAPT; 8292 patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy; 3654 patients receiving clopidogrel monotherapy; 45 patients receiving prasugrel monotherapy) were retained in the per-protocol analysis. Trials of ticagrelor monotherapy were conducted in Asia, Europe, and North America; trials of clopidogrel monotherapy were all conducted in Asia. Ticagrelor was noninferior to DAPT for the primary end point (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.06; P for noninferiority = .004), but clopidogrel was not noninferior (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.87; P for noninferiority > .99), with this finding driven by noncardiovascular death. The risk of major bleeding was lower with both ticagrelor (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62; P < .001) and clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .006; P for interaction = 0.88). NACE were lower with ticagrelor (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86, P < .001) but not with clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = .99; P for interaction = .04)., Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ticagrelor monotherapy was noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke and superior for major bleeding and NACE. Clopidogrel monotherapy was similarly associated with reduced bleeding but was not noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke, largely because of risk observed in 1 trial that exclusively included East Asian patients and a hazard that was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death.

Background: Aspirin is the only antiplatelet agent with a Class I recommendation for long-term prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). There is inconsistent evidence on how it compares with alternative antiplatelet agents., Objectives: This study compared P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin in patients with CAD., Methods: We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with established CAD. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Prespecified key secondary outcomes were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (the composite of the primary outcome and major bleeding). Data were pooled in a 1-step meta-analysis., Results: Patient-level data were obtained from 7 trials. Overall, 24,325 participants were available for analysis, including 12,178 patients assigned to receive P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy (clopidogrel in 7,545 [62.0%], ticagrelor in 4,633 [38.0%]) and 12,147 assigned to receive aspirin. Risk of the primary outcome was lower with P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with aspirin over 2 years (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97; P = 0.012), mainly owing to less myocardial infarction (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66-0.90; P < 0.001). Major bleeding was similar (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-1.09; P = 0.23) and net adverse clinical events were lower (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81-0.98; P = 0.020) with P2Y 12 inhibitors. The treatment effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups and types of P2Y 12 inhibitors., Conclusions: Given its superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy might be preferred over aspirin monotherapy for long-term secondary prevention in patients with established CAD. (P2Y 12 Inhibitor or Aspirin Monotherapy as Secondary Prevention in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials [PANTHER collaborative initiative]; CRD42021290774)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was funded by institutional support of the Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, and the Department of Cardiology at Bern University Hospital, which had no role in the data analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report. There was no industry involvement in the design, analysis, or funding of this study. Dr Valgimigli has received personal fees from AstraZeneca; has received grants and personal fees from Terumo; and has received personal fees from Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFLOW, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Departement Klinische Forschung of Universität Basel, Bristol Myers Squibb SA, Medscape, Biotronik, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr Windecker has received research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, Infraredx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Swiss, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave; serves as an unpaid advisory board member and/or unpaid member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, V-Wave, and Xeltis but has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers; is a member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration; is an unpaid member of the Pfizer Research Award selection committee in Switzerland and of the Women as One Awards Committee; is a member of the Clinical Study Group of the Deutsches Zentrum für Herz Kreislauf-Forschung and of the Advisory Board of the Australian Victorian Heart Institute; and is chairperson of the ESC Congress Program Committee and Deputy Editor of JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. Dr Mehran has served on the scientific advisory boards of the American Medical Association, the American College of Cardiology (Board of Trustees Member), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (Women in Innovations Committee Member), JAMA Cardiology (Associate Editor), and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation (Faculty) (no fee). Dr Woodward is a consultant for Freeline; and has recently been a consultant to Amgen. Dr Schunkert has received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, and SYNLAB. Dr Franzone has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, Speaker Bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Edwards Lifesciences and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Bhatt discloses the following relationships—advisory board: AngioWave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys; board of directors: AngioWave (stock options), Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), High Enroll (stock), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; Chair: Inaugural Chair, American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; consultant: Broadview Ventures; data monitoring committees: Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), 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; for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute; Rutgers University (for the National Institutes of Health–funded MINT Trial); Honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI 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), Cowen and Company, 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, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), WebMD (CME steering committees), Wiley (steering committee); other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), and VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); patent: Sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned to Lexicon; neither Dr Bhatt nor Brigham and Women’s Hospital receive any income from this patent); research funding: Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; royalties: Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); site co-investigator: Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; trustee: American College of Cardiology; and unfunded research: FlowCo and Takeda. Dr Steg has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Sanofi; has received grants and personal fees from Amarin, Servier, and Bayer; has received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Idorsia, Pfizer, and Novartis; and has a patent on the use of alirocumab to reduce risk after acute coronary syndrome (royalties to Sanofi) pending. Dr Szarek has served as a consultant or on advisory boards (or both) for CiVi, Resverlogix, Baxter, Esperion, Sanofi, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: It remains unclear whether P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy preserves ischemic protection while limiting bleeding risk compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Objectives: We sought to assess the effects of P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT vs standard DAPT in relation to PCI complexity., Methods: We pooled patient-level data from randomized controlled trials comparing P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy and standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated outcomes after coronary revascularization. Complex PCI was defined as any of 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or chronic total occlusion. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding., Results: Of 22,941 patients undergoing PCI from 5 trials, 4,685 (20.4%) with complex PCI had higher rates of ischemic events. The primary efficacy endpoint was similar between P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy and DAPT among patients with complex PCI (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.19) and noncomplex PCI (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.76-1.09; P interaction  = 0.770). The treatment effect was consistent across all the components of the complex PCI definition. Compared with DAPT, P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy consistently reduced BARC 3 or 5 bleeding in complex PCI (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.84) and noncomplex PCI patients (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.37-0.64; P interaction  = 0.920)., Conclusions: P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT was associated with similar rates of fatal and ischemic events and lower risk of major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, irrespective of PCI complexity. (PROSPERO [P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Standard Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Revascularization: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials]; CRD42020176853)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was funded by institutional support of the Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, which had no role in the data analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report. Dr Mehran has received grants from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, BMS, CSL Behring, DSI, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and OrbusNeich; has received personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Medscape/WebMD, Siemens Medical Solutions, PLx Opco Inc/dba PLx Pharma Inc, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, and Medtelligence (Janssen Scientific Affairs); has other financial relationships with Abbott Laboratories, Abiomed, The Medicines Company, Spectranetics/Philips/Volcano Corp, and Watermark Research Partners, outside the submitted work; has received nonfinancial support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and has other relationships with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb. Drs Branca and Heg are affiliated with CTU Bern, University of Bern, which has a staff policy of not accepting honoraria or consultancy fees. However, CTU Bern is involved in design, conduct, or analysis of clinical studies funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organizations such as pharmaceutical and medical device companies provide direct funding to some of these studies. Dr Kimura has received research grants from Abbott Vascular, outside the submitted work. Dr Hahn has received grants or contracts from Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. Dr Windecker has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave; serves as unpaid advisory board member and/or unpaid member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, V-Wave and Xeltis; and is a member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr Gibson has received research or grant funding from CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson Corporation, and SCAD Alliance; has received consulting fees from Amarin, Amag Pharmaceuticals, Angel Medical Corporation, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZenca, Bayer Corporation Bioclinica, Boston Clinical Research Institute, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caladrius Biosciences, Cardiovascular Clinical Science Foundation, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, CeleCor Therapeutics, CSL Behring, CytoSorbents Medical, Inc, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Eidos Therapeutics, EXCITE International, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Inari, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Johnson & Johnson Corporation, MD Magazine, MedImmune, Medtelligence, MedTrace, Merck Microport, Micodrop, LLC, Novo Nordisk, Paratek, PERT Consortium, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PHRI, PLxPharma, Revance Therapeutics, SCAI, Smart Medics, Somahlution, and Web MD; and has received personal fees from UpToDate in Cardiovascular Medicine, and other from Absolutys, nference, and Dyad Medical, outside the submitted work. Dr Watanabe has received honoraria for lectures from Abbott Medical Japan, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, and Kowa, outside the submitted work. Dr Zhu has received grants from AstraZeneca and Chugaipharma; and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, Medtronic, and Chugaipharma, outside the submitted work; and has received nonfinancial support from Medtronic. Dr Vranckx has received consulting fees or honoraria from Bayer AG, Daiichi-Sankyo, Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer, Menarini, and CSL Behring; has participated data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Novartis; and his institution has received research grants from Daiichi-Sankyo and Medtronic. Dr Serruys has received personal fees from SMT, Philips, Xeltis, Novartis, and Merillife, outside the submitted work. Dr Dangas has received grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Bayer, outside the submitted work; and has received personal fees from Biosensors and Boston Scientific. Dr McFadden has received personal fees from Cardialysis BV, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, outside the submitted work. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, and Sanofi; 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, outside the submitted work. Dr Valgimigli has received grants from Terumo; and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Terumo, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFlow, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals LTD, Universität Basel, Department. Klinische Forschung, Bristol Myers Squibb SA, Medscape, Biotronik, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background In the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, ticagrelor monotherapy beyond 1 month compared with standard antiplatelet regimens after coronary stent implantation did not improve outcomes at intention-to-treat analysis. Considerable differences in treatment adherence between the experimental and control groups may have affected the intention-to-treat results. In this reanalysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, we compared the experimental and control treatment strategies in a per-protocol analysis of patients who did not deviate from the study protocol. Methods and Results Baseline and postrandomization information were used to classify whether and when patients were deviating from the study protocol. With logistic regressions, we derived time-varying inverse probabilities of nondeviation from protocol to reconstruct the trial population without protocol deviation. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or nonfatal Q-wave myocardial infarction at 2 years. At 2-year follow-up, 1103 (13.8%) of 7980 patients in the experimental group and 785 (9.8%) of 7988 patients in the control group qualified as protocol deviators. At per-protocol analysis, the rate ratio for the primary end point was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75-1.03; P =0.10) on the basis of 274 versus 325 events in the experimental versus control group. The rate ratio for the key safety end point of major bleeding was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.26; P =0.99). The per-protocol and intention-to-treat effect estimates were overall consistent. Conclusions Among patients who complied with the study protocol in the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month followed by ticagrelor monotherapy was not superior to 1-year standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by aspirin alone at 2 years after coronary stenting. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01813435.

Objectives: We sought to report details of the incidence, organisms, clinical course, and outcomes of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients., Background: PVE remains a rare but devastating complication of aortic valve replacement. Data regarding PVE after TAVR in low-risk patients are lacking., Methods: We performed a detailed review of all patients in the low-risk TAVR trials who underwent TAVR from 2016 to 2020 and were adjudicated to have definitive PVE by the independent Clinical Events Committee., Results: We analyzed 396 low-risk patients who underwent TAVR (including 72 with bicuspid valves). PVE occurred in 11 patients at a median 379 days (210, 528) from TAVR. The incidence within the first 30 days was 0%; days 31-365, 1.5%; and after day 365, 2.8%. The most common organism identified was Streptococcus (n = 4/11). Early PVE (≤ 365 days) occurred in five patients, of whom three demonstrated evidence of embolic stroke and two underwent surgical aortic valve re-intervention. Late PVE (> 365 days) occurred in six patients, of whom thee demonstrated evidence of embolic stroke and only one underwent surgical aortic valve re-intervention. Of the six patients with evidence of embolic stroke, two died, two were discharged to rehabilitation, and two were discharged home with home care., Conclusions: PVE was infrequent following TAVR in low-risk patients but was associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Embolic stroke complicated the majority of PVE cases, contributing to worse outcomes in these patients. Efforts must be undertaken to minimize PVE in TAVR., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aims: The five-item PRECISE-DAPT, integrating age, haemoglobin, white-blood-cell count, creatinine clearance, and prior bleeding, predicts bleeding risk in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after stent implantation. We sought to assess whether the bleeding risk prediction offered by the PRECISE-DAPT remains valid among patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy from 1 month onwards after coronary stenting instead of standard DAPT and having or not having centrally adjudicated bleeding endpoints., Methods and Results: The PRECISE-DAPT was calculated in 14 928 and 7134 patients from GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY trials, respectively. The ability of the score to predict Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding was assessed and compared among patients on ticagrelor monotherapy (experimental strategy) or standard DAPT (reference strategy) from 1 month after drug-eluting stent implantation. Bleeding endpoints were investigator-reported or centrally adjudicated in GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY, respectively. At 2 years, the c-indexes for the score among patients treated with the experimental or reference strategy were 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-0.71] vs. 0.63 (95% CI: 0.59-0.67) in GLOBAL LEADERS (P = 0.27), and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61-0.73) vs. 0.66 (95% CI: 0.61-0.72) in GLASSY (P = 0.88). Decision curve analysis showed net benefit using the PRECISE-DAPT to guide bleeding risk assessment under both treatment strategies. Results were consistent between investigator-reported and adjudicated endpoints and using the simplified four-item PRECISE-DAPT., Conclusion: The PRECISE-DAPT offers a prediction model that proved similarly effective to predict clinically relevant bleeding among patients on ticagrelor monotherapy from 1 month after coronary stenting compared with standard DAPT and appears to be unaffected by the presence or absence of adjudicated bleeding endpoints., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy after one-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or conventional DAPT in patients with or without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the GLOBAL LEADERS Adjudication Sub-StudY (GLASSY)., Methods and Results: Risk estimates were expressed as rate ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 3,840 ACS and 3,745 stable ischaemic heart disease (SIHD) patients were included. At two years, rates of the co-primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke or urgent target vessel revascularisation, were 7.94% in the experimental and 9.68% in the control group (RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.01) among ACS patients and 6.31% in the experimental and 7.14% in the control group (RR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.69-1.13) among SIHD patients (pint=0.63). Trends for lower and higher risk of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding with the experimental strategy in ACS (2.27% vs 3.00%, RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.51-1.12) and SIHD (2.70% vs 1.96%, RR 1.39, 95% CI: 0.91-2.12) patients, respectively, were observed with significant interaction testing (pint=0.039). A net clinical benefit endpoint, the composite of both co-primary study endpoints, favoured the experimental treatment among ACS patients only., Conclusions: Ticagrelor monotherapy after one-month DAPT provided consistent treatment effects on ischaemic endpoints in patients with or without ACS but only the former experienced a net clinical benefit. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03231059.