Lipid Lowering Treatment and Follow Up in Recent Post Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: Real-World Evidence from the Multicenter Observational Prospective - Post Acute Coronary Syndrome Italian Study (PACSI)

PURPOSE: Patients suffering from an acute coronary syndrome are at very high risk for recurrent events. Early targeted pharmacological intervention primarily aimed at controlling plasma LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels can result in the reduction of recurrent cardiovascular events. This study aimed to evaluate real-life evidence from the Italian setting to document current practice of secondary prevention in patients after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), specifically assessing: (i) the rate of LDL-C target (<70 mg/dl) achievement after 6-10 weeks from index event and at later follow-up, (ii) the distance from LDL-C target during follow up, (iii) adherence rate and visit attendance. METHODS Multicenter observational prospective clinical study ACS patients, evaluating target attainment rate at 6 weeks (V0) and 18 months (V2). RESULTS Approximately 97.4% patients enrolled (N=524) received statin-based therapy, and 3.6% received ezetimibe at discharge; mean LDL-C values decreased from 113.0±44.7 mg/dL at discharge to 71.3±26.5 mg/dl at V0. Among patients with known LDL-C for main time-points, 51.7% achieved target LDL-C at V0, 45.8% at V2. Among patients not reaching the target, the mean distance from target was 23.5±20.7 mg/dL. Attainment of target LDL-C was similar in patients receiving intensive or low-moderate statin-based treatment (approximately 50%). LDL-C target attainment was associated with lower LDL-C value at discharge and smoking status. Adherence to statin treatment was high (96.2%) throughout, similarly to medical appointment attendance at V2 (84.7%). CONCLUSION Despite most ACS patients receiving intensive statin-based regimens, only approximately half achieved LDL-C target, suggesting the need for further optimizing drug selection, combination and dosage. 

De-escalation therapy after acute coronary syndrome: is it reasonable to switch from prasugrel (or ticagrelor) to clopidogrel early?

Dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) is the treatment of choice to prevent atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous interventions (PCIs). The availability of different P2Y12 inhibitors set the stage for costum made DAPT, as to achieve the highest profile of safety and efficacy. The de-escalation therapy for the newer and more powerful antiplatelet drugs, such as ticagrelor and prasugrel, to clopidogrel, is a strategy for patients with recent ACS, unfit for continuing DAPT for their high risk of bleeding, or side effects, or socio-economic reasons, but without a prohibitive ischaemic risk. There is a need for compelling clinical evidences able to provide the clinical cardiologist with the necessary information to decide the best antiplatelet strategy for each individual patient.

Diagnosis and risk stratification of chest pain patients in the emergency department: focus on acute coronary syndromes. A position paper of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association

This paper provides an update on the European Society of Cardiology task force report on the management of chest pain. Its main purpose is to provide an update on the decision algorithms and diagnostic pathways to be used in the emergency department for the assessment and triage of patients with chest pain symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes.

P5531A systematic follow-up strategy after percutaneous coronary intervention based on patient risk profile: the prospective POST-PCI registry

Background

Redundant clinical and non-invasive examinations after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) increase the cost of medical care with no outcome improve. A multidisciplinary consensus document (MCD) providing a follow-up (FU) strategy based on 3 clinical and angiographic risk profile (A high, B intermediate, and C low) has been recently proposed.

Aim

To evaluate the potential reduction of cardiologic consults (CC), stress tests (ST), and echocardiograms (EC) with the application of the MCD after PCI.

Methods

The Post-PCI registry is a multicenter, observational, prospective data collection carried out during a four-week period that included consecutive patients undergoing PCI at 31 Italian Hospitals both for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or stable coronary artery disease (SCAD). FU strategies were left at investigator's discretion. A comparison between the CC, ST and EC performed in the first 12-months with the potential suggested by the MCD was evaluated.

Results

A total of 1113 patients were included; 12-months follow up was available in 90% of the cases (mean age 68±11 years old, 58% ACS). Based on MCD risk profile 17% were in A, 74% in B and 9% in C strategy. On average observed CC and ST were significantly lower compared to the expected based on MCD (respectively 1.63±1.07 vs 1.91±0.28, and 0.41±0.59 vs 0.61±0.84; on the contrary EC were significantly higher (0.64±0.73 vs 0.34±0.75, all: p<0.001). The excess rate for CC, ST and EC as compared to MCD was respectively 25%, 14% and 8% for the strategy A, 14%, 25% and 50% for the strategy B and 26%, 54% and 40% for the strategy C. At multivariable logistic analysis the MCD strategy was an independent predictor (in a model with age, sex, consulting physician, public or private hospital) of an increased number of cardiac examination in patients at intermediated and low risk [B group OR 2.56 (95% CI 1.38–4.75), C group 27.00 (95% CI 8.13–89.62)]. The other independent predictor was age, with a reduced number of examination for elderly (>75 years old) patients [OR 0.59 (CI 95% 0.43–0.80)].

Conclusion

Our data suggest that in a real word population of patients undergoing PCI, a follow-up strategy based on clinical and anatomical risk profile would allow to a reduction of cardiac tests and consultations, particularly in patients at intermediated and low risk leading to an increase of appropriateness of prescription and to a cost reduction of medical care.

Acknowledgement/Funding

The Post-PCI registry was supported by the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE) receiving an unrestricted grant from Astra Zeneca

P2815Antiplatelet therapy with cangrelor in patients undergoing surgery after coronary stent implantation: a real-world bridging protocol experience

Background

Perioperative management of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients deemed at high thrombotic risk undergoing non-deferrable surgery remains poorly defined. Cangrelor represents a potential treatment option as a “bridge” from discontinuation of oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists to surgical procedures, but data in this setting are still scant.

Purpose

We sought to describe a real-world experience of a bridging protocol using cangrelor for patients referred to relevant bleeding risk surgery requiring withdrawal of DAPT.

Methods

We collected data from 7 Italian centers on patients with previous PCI, still on DAPT, undergoing non-deferrable surgery which required discontinuation of one or both antiplatelet agents. A standardized bridging protocol using cangrelor infusion before and eventually after surgery was applied (Figure 1).

Results

Between December 2017 and January 2019, a total of 18 patients (mean age 70±10 years; male 85%) were enrolled. In the majority (89%) of patients, the index PCI was performed due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and 2±1.7 stents per patient were implanted. All patients required non-deferrable, intermediate-high bleeding risk surgery as pulmonary lobectomy, colectomy, endoscopic bladder surgery, paranasal sinus surgery, coronary artery by-pass surgery and valvular repair, hip replacement, endoscopy sphincterotomy. High thrombotic risk categories included PCI time <1 month, SCA time <3 months, stent failure occurrence, previous Absorb BVS implantation. Due to the surgical bleeding risk, discontinuation of P2Y12 inhibitor was required 5 days before surgery (ticagrelor, n=13; prasugrel=1; clopidogrel, n=5). All patients but 1 maintained aspirin through the perioperative phase. Cangrelor infusion was started at a bridging dose (0.75 mcg/kg/min) 3 days before planned surgery and was discontinued 6.9±1.5 hours before. After surgery, drainages were left in all patients but 3. In 56% of patients, cangrelor was resumed within 24 hours from surgery (mean time 9±7 hours) for a mean of 36±38 hours. Drainages were removed after discontinuation of cangrelor, in order to reduce bleeding complications. Within 2 hours from post-operative cangrelor discontinuation, a 300 mg clopidogrel loading dose was administered. No major ischemic adverse outcomes occurred during hospital stay and up to 30 days follow-up. The mean Hb drop was 2±1.8 g/dl, 7 patients received blood transfusions consistent with the type of surgeries and no life-threatening or fatal bleeding occurred.

Figure 1. Standardized bridging protocol.

Conclusions

Peri-operative bridge therapy with cangrelor is a feasible approach for stented patients at high thrombotic risk referred to non-deferrable surgery requiring DAPT discontinuation. Larger studies are warranted to support the safety of this strategy.

Use of DOACs in real-world challenging settings: a Delphi Consensus from Italian cardiologists

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent the first therapeutic option for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, phase 3 trials that demonstrated higher safety and at least similar efficacy of DOACs compared to Warfarin, included a selected population, not entirely representative of real-world. The present Consensus document was aimed at overcoming the uncertainties about DOAC use in challenging setting where data are conflicting or sparse or where a gap between trials and real world exists.

METHODS

The Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on DOAC use in AF patients throughout 104 Cardiologists in Piedmont, Italy. A questionnaire on 6 commonly encountered clinical settings was administered: 1) the elderly; 2) the "frail" patient; 3) interactions with food/drugs; 4) low-dosages; 5) cancer patients; 6) patients with acute coronary syndrome.

RESULTS

DOAC use over Warfarin was investigated in the elderly population, in the frail patients and in those with cancer, and clinical consensus was reached on its preferential use. Drug interactions should always be considered when a DOAC is prescribed and dosage should respect the Summary of Product Characteristics. No consensus was reached in patients with severe renal impairment and in those with dynamic clinical characteristics ("borderline patients"). DOACs should be considered as the first-line anticoagulation therapy in patients with high intracranial bleeding risk.

CONCLUSIONS

DOACs should represent the first-line anticoagulation therapy in non-valvular AF patients in the majority of challenging settings, underexplored by literature. Caution in their prescription is needed in case of severe renal impairment. Dose choice should follow the SmPC, although this is matter of debate in borderline patients.

Acute myocardial infarction complicating ischemic stroke: is there room for cangrelor?

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicating ischemic stroke is a well known and undertreated event. A conservative management is not infrequent in these settings, due to the fear of hemorrhagic complications related to antithrombotic therapy. Notably, an invasive approach with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to be associated with a lower in-hospital mortality in patients with concomitant ischemic stroke and AMI. The optimal antiplatelet regimen in these cases has been not clearly defined, yet. We report two cases of patients with AMI complicating ischemic stroke, successfully treated with cangrelor infusion, which was started during PCI and maintained up to 48 h at bridge therapy dosage (0.75 mcg/kg/min). Both patients underwent successful PCI in the acute phase, and neither ischemic nor hemorrhagic complications occurred during in-hospital stay.

A Multidisciplinary Approach on the Perioperative Antithrombotic Management of Patients With Coronary Stents Undergoing Surgery: Surgery After Stenting 2

Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients treated with coronary stents undergoing surgery remains poorly defined. Importantly, surgery represents a common reason for premature treatment discontinuation, which is associated with an increased risk in mortality and major adverse cardiac events. However, maintaining antithrombotic therapy to minimize the incidence of perioperative ischemic complications may increase the risk of bleeding complications. Although guidelines provide some recommendations with respect to the perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy, these have been largely developed according to the thrombotic risk of the patient and a definition of the hemorrhagic risk specific to each surgical procedure, key to defining the trade-off between ischemia and bleeding, is not provided. These observations underscore the need for a multidisciplinary collaboration among cardiologists, anesthesiologists, hematologists and surgeons to reach this goal. The present document is an update on practical recommendations for standardizing management of antithrombotic therapy management in patients treated with coronary stents (Surgery After Stenting 2) in various types of surgery according to the predicted individual risk of thrombotic complications against the anticipated risk of surgical bleeding complications. Cardiologists defined the thrombotic risk using a "combined ischemic risk" approach, while surgeons classified surgeries according to their inherent hemorrhagic risk. Finally, a multidisciplinary agreement on the most appropriate antithrombotic treatment regimen in the perioperative phase was reached for each surgical procedure.

Dual antiplatelet therapy after TAVR: A drop in the bucket?

Current guidelines recommend a three- to six-months dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or to continue with oral anticoagulant agents (OAC) if already indicated before procedure. However, recent studies showed that treatment with aspirin has the same efficacy of DAPT but it was associated with a significant reduction of major bleeding. Furthermore, half of cerebrovascular events, occurring >24 h after procedure, may be related to new onset of atrial fibrillation or to subclinical leaflets thrombosis and they may be prevented by use of OAC rather than antiplatelet therapy. In absence of very high bleeding risk and of recent percutaneous coronary intervention, the use of OAC over SAPT or DAPT might theoretically be considered in patients undergoing TAVR waiting for results of ongoing clinical trials.

All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and health care costs after 12 months of dual platelet aggregation inhibition after acute myocardial infarction in real-world patients: findings from the Platelet-aggregation Inhibition: Persistence with treatment and cardiovascular Events in Real world (PIPER) study

Objectives

The aim of the study was to assess all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) events in patients after a period of 12 months of treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a real-world setting. Health care costs for the management of patients post-AMI was also assessed.

Methods

A retrospective analysis using data from the administrative databases of six local health units (LHUs) was performed. All beneficiaries of these LHUs hospitalized with AMI between January 01, 2010, and December 31, 2011, and exposed to a treatment period with DAPT up to 12 months after AMI discharge were included. All-cause mortality, CV hospitalizations, and health care costs occurring during the 36-month follow-up period from end of treatment with DAPT were considered. For the cost analysis, only patients still alive at the end of the follow-up period were included.

Results

A total of 2,721 patients were included (mean ± SD age 63.6±17.3 years, 67.8% males). About 17% and 18% of all patients had CV events and died during the follow-up period, respectively. The annual mean cost per patient was €3,523.27. During the follow-up period, 63 patients had a second AMI event; for whom, the mean health care cost per patient was €19,570.70.

Conclusion

In a real-world setting in Italy, considering a 36-month follow-up period, all-cause mortality, CV events, and related health care cost of patients hospitalized with an AMI undergoing a 12-month treatment period with DAPT remained relevant. This study suggests that increased efforts aimed at the prevention of recurrent AMI are warranted, as well as an accurate risk stratification in order to improve long-term outcome.

[Spontaneous coronary artery dissections]

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a non-atherosclerotic coronary artery pathology and an important cause of coronary artery disease in young women with an average age of 40 to 50 years with few or no cardiovascular risk factors. There has been a surge in the diagnosis of SCAD due to an increased use of coronary angiography and the clinical availability and application of high-resolution intracoronary imaging. SCAD is due to the separation of coronary wall layers with the formation of intramural hematoma, compression of the true lumen and secondary myocardial ischemia. Coronary angiography is the first-line imaging, also useful are intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography. Therapy is conservative in most cases because of the high percentage of spontaneous healing of the vascular wall. The prognosis is good, although the disease is burdened by a high prevalence of major adverse coronary events, including recurrence of coronary dissection, thus making careful follow-up essential in survivors of the acute event. Given that the presence of SCAD may be associated with aneurysm formation and dissections of other arteries, screening of the arterial tree may be useful, especially of the supra-aortic trunks and splanchnic circulation.

Comparison of Reduced-Dose Prasugrel and Standard-Dose Clopidogrel in Elderly Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Early Percutaneous Revascularization

Background:

Elderly patients are at elevated risk of both ischemic and bleeding complications after an acute coronary syndrome and display higher on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity compared with younger patients. Prasugrel 5 mg provides more predictable platelet inhibition compared with clopidogrel in the elderly, suggesting the possibility of reducing ischemic events without increasing bleeding.

Methods:

In a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded end point trial, we compared a once-daily maintenance dose of prasugrel 5 mg with the standard clopidogrel 75 mg in patients >74 years of age with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was the composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, disabling stroke, and rehospitalization for cardiovascular causes or bleeding within 1 year. The study was designed to demonstrate superiority of prasugrel 5 mg over clopidogrel 75 mg.

Results:

Enrollment was interrupted, according to prespecified criteria, after a planned interim analysis, when 1443 patients (40% women; mean age, 80 years) had been enrolled with a median follow-up of 12 months, because of futility for efficacy. The primary end point occurred in 121 patients (17%) with prasugrel and 121 (16.6%) with clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.007; 95% confidence interval, 0.78–1.30; P =0.955). Definite/probable stent thrombosis rates were 0.7% with prasugrel versus 1.9% with clopidogrel (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.13–1.00; P =0.06). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 2 and greater rates were 4.1% with prasugrel versus 2.7% with clopidogrel (odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.85–3.16; P =0.18).

Conclusions:

The present study in elderly patients with acute coronary syndromes showed no difference in the primary end point between reduced-dose prasugrel and standard-dose clopidogrel. However, the study should be interpreted in light of the premature termination of the trial.

Clinical Trial Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01777503.

[ANMCO/ANCE/ARCA/GICR-IACPR intersociety consensus document: long-term antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease]

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor is the cornerstone of the pharmacologic management of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or receiving coronary stents. Long-term (>1 year) DAPT may further reduce the risk of stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and may decrease the occurrence of non-stent-related ischemic events in patients with ACS. Nevertheless, compared with aspirin alone, extended use of aspirin plus a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor may increase the risk of bleeding events that have been strongly linked to adverse outcomes including recurrent ischemia, repeat hospitalization, and death. Over the last years, multiple randomized clinical trials have been published comparing duration of DAPT after PCI and in ACS patients investigating either a shorter or prolonged DAPT regimen.Although current European Society of Cardiology guidelines provide backup to individualize treatment, it seems difficult to identify the ideal patient profile who could safely reduce or prolong DAPT duration in daily clinical practice. The aim of this consensus document is to review the contemporary literature on optimal DAPT duration and to guide clinicians in tailoring antiplatelet strategies in patients undergoing PCI or presenting with ACS.

Consensus Document ANMCO/ANCE/ARCA/GICR-IACPR/GISE/SICOA: Long-term Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor is the cornerstone of pharmacologic management of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or those receiving coronary stents. Long-term (>1 year) DAPT may further reduce the risk of stent thrombosis after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and may decrease the occurrence of non-stent-related ischaemic events in patients with ACS. Nevertheless, compared with aspirin alone, extended use of aspirin plus a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor may increase the risk of bleeding events that have been strongly linked to adverse outcomes including recurrent ischaemia, repeat hospitalisation and death. In the past years, multiple randomised trials have been published comparing the duration of DAPT after PCI and in ACS patients, investigating either a shorter or prolonged DAPT regimen. Although the current European Society of Cardiology guidelines provide a backup to individualised treatment, it appears to be difficult to identify the ideal patient profile which could safely reduce or prolong the DAPT duration in daily clinical practice. The aim of this consensus document is to review contemporary literature on optimal DAPT duration, and to guide clinicians in tailoring antiplatelet strategies in patients undergoing PCI or presenting with ACS.

Antiplatelet therapy in STEMI undergoing primary PCI: when, which one and how long

Reperfusion therapy for patients presenting with an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) involves primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and concomitant dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with combination of a P2Y12 inhibitor and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). Decision regarding DAPT can be challenging clinically in the modern era with the evolution of newer stents, more potent antiplatelet agents and novel anticoagulant drugs in addition to an older patient population with multiple comorbidities. This review outlines the currently available antiplatelet treatments, and their place within the therapeutic timeline of a patient presenting with STEMI.

Perioperative antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing endoscopic urologic surgery: where do we stand with current literature?

The number of patients on chronic anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy requiring endoscopic urological surgery is increasing worldwide. Therefore, there is a strong demand to standardize the perioperative treatment of this cohort of patients, both from a surgical and cardiological point of view, balancing the risks of bleeding versus thrombosis, and the important possible clinical and medical legal repercussions therein. Although literature is scarce and the quality of evidence quite low, in line with other surgical specialties, guidelines and recommendations for the management of urological patients have begun to emerge. The aim of this review is to analyze current available literature and evidence on the most common endoscopic procedures performed in this high-risk group of patients, focusing on the perioperative management. In particular, to analyze the most frequently performed endoscopic procedures for the treatment of benign prostate enlargement (transurethral resection of the prostate, Thulium, Holmium and greenlight laser prostatectomy), bladder cancer (transurethral resection of the bladder), upper urinary tract urothelial cancer, and nephrolithiasis. Despite the lack of randomized studies, regardless of individual patient considerations, studies would support continuation of acetylsalicylic acid, which is recommended by cardiologists, in patients with intermediate/high risk of coronary thrombosis. In contrast, multiple studies found that bridging with light weight molecular weight heparin can potentially lead to more bleeding than continuation of the anticoagulant(s) and antiplatelet therapy, and caution with bridging is advised. All urologists should familiarize themselves with emerging guidelines and recommendations, and always be prepared to discuss specific cases or scenarios in a dedicated multidisciplinary team.

Impact of bridging with perioperative low-molecular-weight heparin on cardiac and bleeding outcomes of stented patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery

When patients with coronary stents undergo non-cardiac surgery, bridging therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is not infrequent in clinical practice. However, the efficacy and safety of this approach is poorly understood. This was a retrospective analysis of patients with coronary stent(s) on any antiplatelet therapy undergoing non-cardiac surgery between March 2003 and February 2012. The primary efficacy endpoint was the 30-day incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome leading to hospitalisation, or stroke. The primary safety endpoint was the 30-day composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleedings ≥ 2. Among 515 patients qualifying for the analysis, LMWH bridging was used in 251 (49 %). At 30 days, MACCE occurred more frequently in patients who received LMWH (7.2 % vs 1.1 %, p=0.001), driven by a higher rate of myocardial infarction (4.8 % vs 0 %, p< 0.001). This finding was consistent across several instances of statistical adjustment and after the propensity matching of 179 pairs. Patients bridged with LMWH also experienced a significantly higher risk of BARC bleedings ≥ 2 (21.9 % vs 11.7 %, p=0.002) compared to those who were not, which remained significant across different methods of statistical adjustment and propensity matching. In conclusion, LMWH bridging in patients with coronary stents undergoing surgery is a common and possibly harmful practice, resulting in worse ischaemic outcomes at 30 days, and a significant risk of bleeding.

Perioperative management of oral antiplatelet therapy and clinical outcomes in coronary stent patients undergoing surgery

The aim was to investigate the perioperative risk of ischaemic and bleeding events in patients with coronary stents undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgery and how these outcomes are affected by the perioperative use of oral antiplatelet therapy. This was a multicentre, retrospective, observational study conducted in patients with coronary stent(s) undergoing cardiac or non-cardiac surgery. The primary efficacy endpoint was the 30-day incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. The primary safety endpoint was the 30-day incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding ≥ 2. A total of 666 patients were included. Of these, 371 (55.7 %) discontinued their antiplatelet medication(s) (all or partly) before undergoing surgery. At 30 days, patients with perioperative discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy experienced a significantly higher incidence of MACE (7.5 % vs 0.3 %, p < 0.001), cardiac death (2.7 % vs 0.3 %, p=0.027), and MI (4.0 % vs 0 %, p < 0.001). After adjustment, peri-operative antiplatelet discontinuation was the strongest independent predictor of 30-day MACE (odds ratio [OR]=25.8, confidence interval [CI]=3.37–198, p=0.002). Perioperative aspirin (adjusted OR 0.27, 95 % CI 0.11–0.71, p=0.008) was significantly associated with a lower risk of MACE. The overall incidence of BARC ≥ 2 bleeding events at 30-days was significantly higher in patients who discontinued oral antiplatelet therapy (25.6 % vs 13.9 %, p < 0.001). However, after adjustment, antiplatelet discontinuation was not independently associated with BARC ≥ 2 bleeding. In conclusion antiplatelet discontinuation increases the 30-day risk of MACE, in patients with coronary stents undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgery, while not offering significant protection from BARC≥ 2 bleeding.

Aspirin Desensitization in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Results of the Multicenter ADAPTED Registry (Aspirin Desensitization in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease)

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on aspirin (ASA) desensitization for patients with coronary artery disease. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a standard rapid desensitization protocol in patients with ASA sensitivity undergoing coronary angiography.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a prospective, multicenter, observational study including 7 Italian centers including patients with a history of ASA sensitivity undergoing coronary angiography with intent to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 330 patients with history of ASA sensitivity with known/suspected stable coronary artery disease or presenting with an acute coronary syndrome, including ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction were enrolled. Adverse effects to aspirin included urticaria (n=177, 53.6%), angioedema (n=69, 20.9%), asthma (n=65, 19.7%), and anaphylactic reaction (n=19, 5.8%). Among patients with urticaria/angioedema, 13 patients (3.9%) had a history of idiopathic chronic urticaria. All patients underwent a rapid ASA (5.5 hours) desensitization procedure. The desensitization procedure was performed before cardiac catheterization in all patients, except for those (n=78, 23.6%) presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who underwent the desensitization after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 235 patients (71%) of the overall study population. The desensitization procedure was successful in 315 patients (95.4%) and in all patients with a history of anaphylactic reaction. Among the 15 patients (4.6%) who did not successfully respond to the desensitization protocol, adverse reactions were minor and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and antihistamines. Among patients with successful in-hospital ASA desensitization, 253 patients (80.3%) continued ASA for at least 12 months. Discontinuation of ASA in the 62 patients (19.7%) who had responded to the desensitization protocol was because of medical decision and not because of hypersensitivity reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

A standard rapid desensitization protocol is safe and effective across a broad spectrum of patients, irrespective of the type of aspirin sensitivity manifestation, with indications to undergo coronary angiography with intent to perform percutaneous coronary intervention.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02848339.

Patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes managed without coronary revascularization: A population needing treatment improvement

NSTE-ACS patients are a heterogeneous population, with different clinical features and prognosis. A large proportion of them is medically managed, without any revascularization. In the EYSHOT and FAST-MI registries such patients were 40% and 35%, respectively. These patients are at higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events and have a worse prognosis compared with those receiving revascularization. Medically managed NSTE-ACS patients consist of different subgroups: those not undergoing coronary angiography, those without significant coronary artery disease, and those with coronary stenoses not referred to revascularization. Patients with NSTE-ACS for whom a conservative strategy without coronary angiogram is planned must be very carefully selected. In patients with comorbidities, frailty, or advanced age, a careful balance between benefits and risks is needed to choice the management strategy (perform or not coronary angiography and/or revascularization), as evidence-based medicine data are lacking in the setting of frailty and comorbidities. In this decisional process, it should be also taken into consideration the role of coronary anatomy in risk stratification and treatment guidance. NSTE-ACS patients managed without revascularization less frequently receive guideline-recommended pharmacological treatment. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is recommended for 12months also in medically managed patients, after careful balancing of ischemic and bleeding risk. In these patients it is mandatory to optimize pharmacological treatment, including antiplatelet therapy, to improve outcome. In NSTE-ACS medically managed, the proportion of patients discharged with DAPT should be increased in comparison with current practice, and the use of ticagrelor in place of clopidogrel should be considered in selected patients.

[Fractional flow reserve: a practical guide for interventional cardiologists and the cardiologist's point of view]

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is considered the gold standard for functional assessment of coronary stenosis in stable coronary artery disease. The use of FFR enables an ischemia-guided revascularization with improvement of clinical outcomes in a cost-effective fashion. Both clinical and interventional cardiologists should be aware of the advantages and potential pitfalls of this technique. We focus on FFR with the aim to provide the clinical cardiologist with information on indications and technical aspects to confirm a correct execution of FFR in different coronary anatomical settings.

[Management of outpatients with cardiac disease: follow-up timing and modalities]

The increasing rate of cardiovascular diseases, the improved survival after the acute phase, the aging of the population and the implementation of primary prevention caused an exponential increase in outpatient cardiac performance, thereby making it difficult to maintain a balance between the citizen-patient request and the economic sustainability of the healthcare system. On the other side, the prescription of many diagnostic tests with a view to defensive medicine and the related growth of patients' expectations, has led several scientific societies to educational campaigns highlighting the concept that "less is more".The present document is aimed at providing the general practitioner with practical information about a prompt diagnosis of signs/symptoms (angina, dyspnea, palpitations, syncope) of the major cardiovascular diseases. It will also provide an overview about appropriate use of diagnostic exams (echocardiogram, stress test), about the appropriate timing of their execution, in order to ensure effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of the health system.

[Follow-up strategies after percutaneous coronary intervention: prognostic stratification and multidisciplinary management based on patient risk profile]

The number of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is increasing worldwide. Follow-up strategies after PCI are extremely heterogeneous and can greatly affect the cost of medical care. In the present paper, practical advises are provided with respect to a tailored follow-up strategy on the basis of patients' risk profile. Clinical and interventional cardiologists, cardiac rehabilitators, and general practitioners equally contributed to the creation of the present document and defined three follow-up strategies and types and timing of clinical and instrumental evaluations in post-PCI patients.

[The spiral of evil: iatrogenic coronary and aortic dissection]

Iatrogenic coronary and aortic dissection is one of the worst complication during a percutaneous coronary intervention. Nevertheless, it can be approached and effectively resolved by a percutaneous way, sealing the false lumen "entry door" with a covered stent, even if this device is more thrombogenic than other bare-metal or drug-eluting stents. We report the case of a 60-year-old man with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by both iatrogenic dissection and multiple stent thrombosis.

ANMCO-SIMEU Consensus Document: in-hospital management of patients presenting with chest pain

Chest pain is a common general practice presentation that requires careful diagnostic assessment because of its diverse and potentially serious causes. However, the evaluation of acute chest pain remains challenging, despite many new insights over the past two decades. The percentage of patients presenting to the emergency departments because of acute chest pain appears to be increasing. Nowadays, there are two essential chest pain-related issues: (i) the missed diagnoses of acute coronary syndromes with a poor short-term prognosis; and (ii) the increasing percentage of hospitalizations of low-risk cases. It is well known that hospitalization of a low-risk chest pain patient can lead to unnecessary tests and procedures, with an increasing trend of complications and burden of costs. Therefore, the significantly reduced financial resources of healthcare systems induce physicians and administrators to improve the efficiency of care protocols for patients with acute chest pain. Despite the efforts of the Scientific Societies in producing statements on this topic, in Italy there is still a significant difference between emergency physicians and cardiologists in managing patients with chest pain. For this reason, the aim of the present consensus document is double: first, to review the evidence-based efficacy and utility of various diagnostic tools, and, second, to delineate the critical pathways (describing key steps) that need to be implemented in order to standardize the management of chest pain patients, making a correct diagnosis and treatment as uniform as possible across the entire country.

ANMCO/GICR-IACPR/SICI-GISE Consensus Document: the clinical management of chronic ischaemic cardiomyopathy

Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is a clinical entity of great epidemiological importance. It is becoming increasingly common due to the longer life expectancy, being strictly related to age and to advances in diagnostic techniques and pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Stable CAD encompasses a variety of clinical and anatomic presentations, making the identification of its clinical and anatomical features challenging. Therapeutic interventions should be defined on an individual basis according to the patient's risk profile. To this aim, management flow charts have been reviewed based on sustainability and appropriateness derived from recent evidence. Special emphasis has been placed on non-pharmacological interventions, stressing the importance of lifestyle changes, including smoking cessation, regular physical activity, and diet. Adherence to therapy as an emerging risk factor is also discussed.

[Patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome managed without coronary revascularization: an undertreated population]

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) represent one of the most common clinical presentations of ischemic heart disease. Patients with NSTE-ACS are a heterogeneous population, with different clinical features and prognosis. A significant proportion of this population is medically managed, without any revascularization. In the Italian EYESHOT and French FAST-MI registries, patients managed with a conservative strategy were 40% and 35%, respectively. NSTE-ACS patients not undergoing coronary revascularization are at higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events and have a worse prognosis, including short- and long-term mortality, compared with those receiving revascularization. Patients with NSTE-ACS medically managed consist of three different subgroups: those not undergoing coronary angiography, those receiving coronary angiography and without significant coronary artery disease, and those with significant coronary artery disease at angiography but not receiving revascularization. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS for whom a conservative strategy without coronary angiography is planned should be selected very carefully and coronary angiography should not be denied because of the lack of on-site cath-lab facilities. In addition, advanced age alone, in the absence of severe comorbidities or frailty, should not be considered as a reason for denying coronary angiography and, in general, optimal treatment. Given that evidence-based data are lacking, a careful balance between benefits and risks is needed in the decision to perform or not coronary angiography and/or revascularization in patients with important comorbidities, or frailty, or advanced age. In this decisional process, it should be also taken into consideration the role of coronary anatomy in risk stratification and treatment guidance.NSTE-ACS patients managed without revascularization less frequently receive guideline-recommended pharmacological treatment. Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended for 12 months also in medically managed patients, after careful balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Indeed, in this group of patients it is mandatory to optimize pharmacological treatment, including antiplatelet therapy, in order to improve clinical outcome. In NSTE-ACS not undergoing revascularization, the proportion of patients discharged with dual antiplatelet therapy should be increased in comparison to current clinical practice, and the use of ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel should be considered in selected patients.

Effects Of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Antagonists: Anti Platelet Aggregation And Beyond

BACKGROUND

The use of inhibitors of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GPIIb/IIIa) has provided dramatic results in terms of the prevention of acute stent thrombosis and a reduction in major adverse coronary events in patients subjected to percutaneous coronary intervention. GPIIb/IIIa or αIIbβ3 is a member of the β3 subfamily of integrins, which also includes αVβ3. GPIIb/IIIa functions as a receptor for fibrinogen and several adhesion proteins sharing an arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) sequence. GPIIb/IIIa antagonists, through blockade of the receptor, prevent platelet aggregation. Among the three GPIIb/IIIa antagonists used in therapy, abciximab is an anti-β3 monoclonal antibody, while tirofiban and eptifibatide mimic the binding sequence of the fibrinogen ligand. Although antiplatelet aggregation represents the central function of GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors, further actions have been documented for these compounds.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present article is to review the structures and functions of GPIIb/IIIa antagonists and to highlight the clinical outcomes and results of randomized trials with these compounds. Hypotheses on the unexplored potential of GPIIb/IIIa antagonists will be put forward.

CONCLUSION

GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors were developed to prevent platelet aggregation, however, these compounds can exert further biological functions, both platelet- and non-platelet-related. Large-scale studies comparing the efficacy and safety of GPIIb/IIIa antagonists are lacking. More insights into the functions of these compounds may lead to generation of novel small molecules able to antagonize platelet aggregation while promoting vascular repair.

[ANMCO/SIMEU Consensus document: In-hospital management of patients presenting with chest pain]

Chest pain is a common general practice presentation that requires careful diagnostic assessment because of its diverse and potentially serious causes. However, the evaluation of acute chest pain remains challenging, despite many new insights over the past two decades. The percentage of patients presenting to the emergency departments because of acute chest pain appears to be increasing. Nowadays, there are two essential chest pain-related issues: 1) the missed diagnoses of acute coronary syndromes with a poor short-term prognosis; 2) the increasing percentage of hospitalizations of low-risk cases.It is well known that hospitalization of a low-risk chest pain patient can lead to unnecessary tests and procedures, with an increasing trend of complications and burden of costs. Therefore, the significantly reduced financial resources of healthcare systems induce physicians and administrators to improve the efficiency of care protocols for patients with acute chest pain. Despite the efforts of the Scientific Societies in producing statements on this topic, in Italy there is still a significant difference between emergency physicians and cardiologists in managing patients with chest pain. For this reason, the aim of the present consensus document is double: first, to review the evidence-based efficacy and utility of various diagnostic tools, and, second, to delineate the critical pathways (describing key steps) that need to be implemented in order to standardize the management of chest pain patients, making a correct diagnosis and treatment as uniform as possible across the entire country.

[ANMCO/GICR-IACPR/SICI-GISE Consensus document: Clinical management of patients with stable coronary artery disease]

Stable coronary artery disease is of epidemiological importance. It is becoming increasingly common due to the longer life expectancy, being strictly related to age and to advances in diagnostic techniques and pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.Stable coronary artery disease encompasses a variety of clinical and anatomic presentations, making the identification of its clinical and anatomical features challenging. Therapeutic interventions should be defined on an individual basis according to the patient's risk profile. To this aim, management flow-charts have been reviewed based on sustainability and appropriateness derived from recent evidence. Special emphasis has been placed on non-pharmacological interventions, stressing the importance of lifestyle changes, including smoking cessation, regular physical activity and diet. Adherence to therapy as an emerging risk factor is also discussed.

Risk of Adverse Cardiac and Bleeding Events Following Cardiac and Noncardiac Surgery in Patients With Coronary Stent: How Important Is the Interplay Between Stent Type and Time From Stenting to Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Epidemiology and consequences of surgery in patients with coronary stents are not clearly defined, as well as the impact of different stent types in relationship with timing of surgery.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among 39 362 patients with previous coronary stenting enrolled in a multicenter prospective registry and followed for 5 years, 13 128 patients underwent 17 226 surgical procedures. The cumulative incidence of surgery at 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years was 3.6%, 9.4%, 14.3%, and 40.0%, respectively, and of cardiac and noncardiac surgery was 0.8%, 2.1%, 2.6%, and 4.0% and 1.3%, 5.1%, 9.1%, and 31.7%, respectively. We assessed the incidence and the predictors of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and serious bleeding event within 30 days from surgery. Cardiac death occurred in 438 patients (2.5%), myocardial infarction in 256 (1.5%), and serious bleeding event in 1099 (6.4%). Surgery increased 1.58× the risk of cardiac death during follow-up. Along with other risk factors, the interplay between stent type and time from percutaneous coronary intervention to surgery was independently associated with cardiac death/myocardial infarction. In comparison with bare-metal stent implanted >12 months before surgery, old-generation drug-eluting stent was associated with higher risk of events at any time point. Conversely, new-generation drug-eluting stent showed similar safety as bare-metal stent >12 months and between 6 and 12 months and appeared trendly safer between 0 and 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery is frequent in patients with coronary stents and carries a considerable risk of ischemic and bleeding events. Ischemic risk is inversely related with time from percutaneous coronary intervention to surgery and is influenced by stent type.