Search

Background: For patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), direct coronary angiography (CA) is recommended, while for non-AMI patients, the diagnostic work-up depends on clinical criteria. This analysis provides initial prospective German data for the degree of guideline-adherence (GL) in the use of CA on non-AMI patients presenting at the emergency department (ED) with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to the 2015 ESC-ACS-GL. Furthermore the implications of the application of the 2020 ESC-ACS-GL recommendations were evaluated., Methods: Patient symptoms were identified using a standardized questionnaire; medical history and diagnostic work-up were acquired from health records. In accordance with the 2015 ESC-ACS-GL, CA was considered GL-adherent if intermediate risk criteria (IRC) were present or non-invasive, image-guided testing (NIGT) was pathological., Results: Between January 2019 and August 2021, 229 patients were recruited across seven centers. Patients presented with chest pain, dyspnea, and other symptoms in 66.7%, 16.2% and 17.1%, respectively, were in mean 66.3 ± 10.5 years old, and 36.3% were female. In accordance with the 2015 ESC-ACS-GL, the use of CA was GL-adherent for 64.0% of the patients. GL-adherent compared to non-adherent use of CA resulted in revascularization more often (44.5% vs. 17.1%, p < 0.001). Applying the 2020 ESC-ACS-GL, 20.4% of CA would remain GL-adherent., Conclusions: In the majority of cases, the use of CA was adherent to the 2015 ESC-ACS-GL. With regard to the 2020 and 2023 ESC-ACS-GL, efforts to expand the utilization of NIGT are crucial, especially as GL-adherent use of CA is more likely to result in revascularization.(German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015638; https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00015638; (registration date: 19 February 2019))., Competing 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., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: With 900'000 coronary angiographies (CA) per year, Germany has the highest annual per capita volume in Europe. Until now there are no prospective clinical data on the degree of guideline-adherence in the use of CA in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) in Germany., Methods: Between January 2019 and August 2021, 458 patients with suspected CCS were recruited in nine German centres. Guideline-adherence was evaluated according to the current European Society of Cardiology and German guidelines. Pre-test probability (PTP) for CAD was determined using age, gender, and a standardized patient questionnaire to identify symptoms. Data on the diagnostic work-up were obtained from health records., Results: Patients were in mean 66.6 years old, male in 57.3 %, had known CAD in 48.4 % and presented with typical, atypical, non-anginal chest pain or dyspnoea in 35.7 %, 41.3 %, 23.0 % and 25.4 %, respectively. PTP according to the European guidelines was in mean 24.2 % (11.9 %-36.5 % 95 % CI). 20.9 % of the patients received guideline-recommended preceding non-invasive image guided testing. The use of CA was adherent to the European and German guideline recommendations in 20.4 % and 25.4 %, respectively. In multivariate-analysis, arterial hypertension and prior revascularization were predictors of guideline non-adherence., Conclusion: These are the first prospective clinical data which demonstrated an overall low degree of guideline-adherence in the use of CA in patients with suspected CCS in the German health care setting. To improve adherence rates, the availability of and access to non-invasive image guided testing needs to be strengthened. (German Clinical Trials Registry DRKS00015638 - Registration Date: 19.02.2019)., Competing 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., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Importance: Female sex has been identified as a risk factor for bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and may have contributed to the underuse of drug-eluting stents in women. This risk may be further enhanced among patients with a high bleeding risk., Objective: To assess the 2-year outcomes by sex in patients with a high bleeding risk who were enrolled in the LEADERS FREE trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study is a prespecified, sex-based secondary analysis of the LEADERS FREE double-blind, randomized clinical trial that was conducted at 68 sites in 20 countries from December 2012 to May 2014. Patients with a high bleeding risk who underwent PCI and met the trial eligibility criteria were enrolled at the participating sites and followed up for up to 2 years., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to either a bare-metal stent or a polymer-free, biolimus A9-eluting drug-coated stent with 1-month of dual antiplatelet therapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety end point was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy end point was clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Bleeding was assessed using the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) scale, and the source of bleeding was recorded., Results: A total of 2432 patients with a high bleeding risk were included in the study. Of these patients, the mean (SD) age was 75 (9) years, and 1694 (69.7%) were men and 738 (30.3%) were women. Women and men had similar incidence of the 2-year primary safety (14.7% vs 13.6%; P = .37) and efficacy (9.2% vs 9.5%; P = .70) end points. The drug-coated stent was found to be superior to the bare-metal stent in both sexes, with lower target lesion revascularization (women: 6.3% vs 12.1%; men: 7.0% vs 12.0%; P for interaction = .70) and similar rates of the primary safety end point (women: 12.4% vs 17.0%; men: 12.6% vs 14.5%; P for interaction = .40). Overall, 2-year BARC types 3 to 5 major bleeding (10.2% vs 8.6%; P = .14) was not statistically different between the sexes, but women experienced greater BARC types 3 to 5 major bleeding within the first 30 days (5.1% vs 2.4%; P = .007) and greater vascular access site major bleeding than men (2.2% vs 0.5%; P < .001). In both sexes, vascular (women: hazard ratio [HR], 3.45 [95% CI, 1.51-7.87]; men: HR, 4.14 [95% CI, 1.33-12.95]) and nonvascular major bleeding (women: HR, 3.76 [95% CI, 2.17- 6.53]; men: HR, 4.62 [95% CI, 3.23-6.61]) were associated with greater 2-year mortality., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found no sex differences in the ischemic outcomes of patients with a high bleeding risk after PCI, but women appeared to demonstrate greater early bleeding and major bleeding from the vascular access site. Both women and men with major bleeding seemed to experience worse 2-year mortality, suggesting that bleeding avoidance strategies should be uniformly adopted for all patients, with close attention dedicated to women to avoid denying them the benefits of PCI., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02843633.

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

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.