Coronary artery stenting and non-cardiac surgery--a prospective outcome study

Use of drug-eluting balloon coronary intervention prior to living donor kidney transplantation

Background

Kidney transplantation is the gold standard of therapy in patients with terminal renal insufficiency. Living donor transplantation is a well-established option in this field. Enlarging the donor’s pool implicates the acceptance of an increased rate of comorbidities. Among them, coronary artery disease is a growing problem. An increasing number of patients, undergoing living donation, receive antiplatelet therapies due to coronary disease.

Case presentation

Here we report about the perioperative treatment with a drug-eluting balloon in a patient with major cardiac risk factors who underwent kidney transplantation.

Conclusion

At the current time no recommendation can be given for the routine use of drug-eluting balloons.

Drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents prior to noncardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

The safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) vs. bare metal stents (BMS) in the perioperative setting, a heightened state of inflammation and thrombosis is not well defined.

METHODS

All adults undergoing noncardiac surgical (NCS) procedures within 1 year following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Massachusetts between April 1, 2004, and September 30, 2007, were identified from an administrative claims database. Patients were divided into those who received BMS vs. DES at index PCI. Primary net clinical outcome was death, myocardial infarction (MI) or bleeding within 30 days of NCS. Primary clinical outcome was 30-day death or MI.

RESULTS

Among 8,415 (22% BMS) patients that satisfied our inclusion criteria, 1,838 BMS patients were matched with 3,565 DES patients with similar propensity scores. In the DES cohort, the 30-day primary net clinical outcome rate was lower with longer time from PCI to NCS (P = 0.02) with lowest rates if NCS was performed after 90 days from PCI (event rate 8.57, 7.53, 5.21, and 5.75% for 1-30, 31-90, 91-180, and 181-365 days from PCI to NCS). However, in the BMS cohort, the event rate was uniformly high regardless of the time from PCI to NCS (P = 0.60) (event rate 8.20, 6.56, 8.05, and 8.82% for 1-30, 31-90, 91-180, and 181-365 days from PCI to NCS). There was no significant difference between DES and the BMS group for 30-day primary net clinical outcome (6.64 vs. 7.89%; P = 0.10), but there was a 26% lower odds of primary clinical outcome (OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.94) with DES when compared with BMS, driven mainly by differences in event rates when NCS was performed >90 days post PCI.

CONCLUSION

DES implantation was not associated with higher adverse events after NCS. Moreover, the incidence of adverse events following NCS was lower when NCS was performed >90 days post-DES implantation suggesting that it may not be necessary to wait until 12 months post PCI with DES before NCS.

Risk factors for cardiovascular events and bleeding complications following non-cardiac surgery or procedure in patients with drug eluting stent placement

OBJECTIVES

Previous studies suggest an increased incidence of cardiovascular (CV) events after P2Y12 receptor blocker cessation. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of P2Y12 receptor blocker cessation and other risk factors on the risk of CV events and bleeding events after non-cardiac surgery/procedure in patients with drug-eluting stents (DES).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Single large healthcare system in the northeast of the USA.

PATIENTS

All adult patients who had a coronary drug eluting stent (DES) placed between 2002 and 2007 in our institution.

INTERVENTIONS

No randomised intervention. The principal exposure was cessation of P2Y12 receptor blocker.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all adult patients who had a coronary DES placed between 2002 and 2007 in our institution. We considered all non-cardiac procedures up to 1 year after DES placement. Generalised estimating equations were used to identify the independent risk factors. Multiple imputations were used to replace missing values.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcomes were CV events including death from any cause and bleeding, occurring within 30 days after the procedure.

RESULTS

From 2002 to 2007, 6397 patients had DES, 873 (13.6%) had at least one non-cardiac procedure. A total of 3.6% (33/927) of the admissions were complicated by at least one cardiovascular event and 6.9% (55/795) were complicated by bleeding. Urgent procedure (versus elective) was the only independent risk factor for CV events (OR=4.82, 95% CI 1.95 to 11.89). Older age, diabetes, urgent procedures, orthopaedic and vascular surgery compared to unclassified surgery were independent risk factors for bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-cardiac procedures are common within 1 year after DES placement. Urgent nature of procedure is a risk factor for CV events and bleeding complications. Older age, diabetes, type of surgery, are risk factors associated only with bleeding events.

Bridge with intravenous antiplatelet therapy during temporary withdrawal of oral agents for surgical procedures: a systematic review

Patients needing surgery within 1 year after drug-eluting cardiac stent implantation are challenging to manage because of an increased thrombotic and bleeding risk. A "bridge therapy" with short-acting antiplatelet agents in the perioperative period is an option. We assessed the outcome and safety of such a bridge therapy in cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular surgery. We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ongoing trial registers, irrespective of type of design. Our primary outcome was the success rate of bridge therapy in terms of freedom from cardiac ischaemic adverse events, whereas secondary outcome was freedom from bleeding/transfusion. We also performed combined success rate for each bridge therapy drug (tirofiban, eptifibatide, and cangrelor). We included eight case series and one randomised controlled trial. Among the 420 patients included, the technique was effective 96.2 % of the times [95 % confidence interval (CI) 94.4-98.0 %]. The success rate was 100 % for tirofiban (4 studies), 93.8 % for eptifibatide (4 studies), and 96.2 % for cangrelor (1 study). Freedom from bleeding/transfusion events was observed in 72.6 % of the times (95 % CI 68.4-76.9 %), and was higher with cangrelor (88.7 %; 95 % CI 82.7-94.7 %) than with other drugs (81.0 % for tirofiban and 58.6 % for eptifibatide). Evidence from case series and one randomised controlled trial suggests that, in patients with recent coronary stenting undergoing major surgery, perioperative bridge therapy with intravenous antiplatelet agents is an effective and safe treatment option to ensure low rate of ischaemic events.

Safety and efficacy outcomes of first and second generation durable polymer drug eluting stents and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents in clinical practice: comprehensive network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the safety and efficacy of durable polymer drug eluting stents (DES) and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents (biolimus-ES).

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

Medline, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database search for randomised controlled trials comparing at least two of durable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (sirolimus-ES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (paclitaxel-ES), newer durable polymer everolimus eluting stents (everolimus-ES), Endeavor and Resolute zotarolimus eluting stents (zotarolimus-ES), and biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Safety (death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target lesion and target vessel revascularisation) assessed at up to one year and beyond.

RESULTS

60 randomised controlled trials were compared involving 63,242 patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome treated with a DES. At one year, there were no differences in mortality among devices. Resolute and Endeavor zotarolimus-ES, everolimus-ES, and sirolimus-ES, but not biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES, were associated with significantly reduced odds of myocardial infarction (by 29-34%) compared with paclitaxel-ES. Compared with everolimus-ES, biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES were associated with significantly increased odds of myocardial infarction (by 29%), while Endeavor zotarolimus-ES and paclitaxel-ES were associated with significantly increased odds of stent thrombosis. All investigated DES were similar with regards to efficacy endpoints, except for Endeavor zotarolimus-ES and paclitaxel-ES, which were associated with significantly increased the odds of target lesion and target vessel revascularisations compared with other devices. Direction of results beyond one year did not diverge from the findings for up to one year follow-up. Bayesian probability curves showed a gradient in the magnitude of effect, with everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES offering the highest safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

The newer durable polymer everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES and the biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES maintain the efficacy of sirolimus-ES; however, for safety endpoints, differences become apparent, with everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES emerging as the safest stents to date.

Platelet function testing to time surgery in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy?

In patients pretreated with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors who need to undergo non-emergent cardiac or major non-cardiac surgery, current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology recommend postponing surgery for at least five days after last intake of clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and for seven days after last intake of prasugrel, unless there is high risk of ischemic events. However, a fixed five to seven days preoperative waiting period may be challenged, in the presence of inter-individual variability in on-treatment platelet reactivity. Therefore, Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines suggest to base decisions about a surgical delay on platelet function although both, the optimal platelet function assay and a bleeding cutoff have not yet been defined by large scale multicenter trials. This review aims to provide an overview on current knowledge of P2Y12 receptor induced platelet inhibition and surgery related bleeding and the potential role of platelet function analysis to time surgery.

The perioperative management of treatment with anticoagulants and platelet aggregation inhibitors

BACKGROUND

When giving anticoagulants and inhibitors of platelet aggregation either prophylactically or therapeutically, physicians face the challenge of protecting patients from thromboembolic events without inducing harmful bleeding. Especially in the perioperative period, the use of these drugs requires a carefully balanced evaluation of their risks and benefits. Moreover, the choice of drug is difficult, because many different substances have been approved for clinical use.

METHOD

We selectively searched for relevant publications that appeared from 2003 to February 2013, with particular consideration of the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology, the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association.

RESULTS

Vitamin K antagonists (VKA), low molecular weight heparins, and fondaparinux are the established anticoagulants. The past few years have seen the introduction of orally administered selective inhibitors of the clotting factors IIa (dabigatran) and Xa (rivaroxaban, apixaban). The timing of perioperative interruption of anticoagulation is based on pharmacokinetic considerations rather than on evidence from clinical trials. Recent studies have shown that substituting short-acting anticoagulants for VKA before a procedure increases the risk of bleeding without lowering the risk of periprocedural thromboembolic events. The therapeutic spectrum of acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel has been broadened by the newer platelet aggregation inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor. Patients with drug eluting stents should be treated with dual platelet inhibition for 12 months because of the risk of in-stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Anticoagulants and platelet aggregation inhibitors are commonly used drugs, but the evidence for their perioperative management is limited. The risks of thrombosis and of hemorrhage must be balanced against each other in the individual case. Anticoagulation need not be stopped for minor procedures.

Patients who require non-cardiac surgery in acute coronary syndrome

The coexistence of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and non-cardiac surgery (NCS) in an individual patient can be summarized in two challenging clinical scenarios for the treating physician: 1) Post-operative patients who develop ACS and 2) Patients with ACS who subsequently require NCS. Both settings are characterized by a struggle on the part of treating physicians attempting to optimize antithrombotic therapies for ACS while minimizing post-surgical bleeding risk. In this review we address specific clinical issues related to patients with coexistent NCS and ACS, discussing possible management strategies balancing ischemic and bleeding risk in these complex patient scenarios.

Perioperative management of anticoagulation in elective surgery

Surgeons commonly need to treat patients receiving anticoagulant and anti-platelet therapy. This requires risk assessment and management to balance minimization of bleeding complications and avoidance of further ischaemic or thrombotic events. This review considers the evidence available to guide management of patients on anti-platelet and anticoagulant therapy, including some of the new classes of anti-platelets and anticoagulants which clinicians may be less familiar with.

Is discontinuation of clopidogrel necessary for intracapsular hip fracture surgery? Analysis of 102 hemiarthroplasties

Background

An increasing number of elderly patients are managed with long-term antiplatelet therapy. Such patients often present with hip fracture requiring surgical intervention and may be at increased risk of perioperative bleeding and complications. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether it is necessary to stop clopidogrel preoperatively to avoid postoperative complications following hip hemiarthroplasty surgery in patients with intracapsular hip fracture.

Materials and methods

A retrospective review of 102 patients with intracapsular hip fracture with either perioperative clopidogrel therapy [clopidogrel group (CG)] or no previous clopidogrel exposure [no clopidogrel group (NCG)] who underwent hip hemiarthroplasty surgery was undertaken. Statistical comparison on pre- and postoperative haemoglobin, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, comorbidities, operative time, transfusion requirements, hospital length of stay (LOS), wound infection, haematoma and reoperation rate between the two groups was undertaken. Regression analysis was undertaken to ascertain the risk ratios (RR) of complications and transfusion associated with clopidogrel.

Results

There was no difference with respect to ASA grade, comorbidities (except cardiac comorbidities), pre- and postoperative haemoglobin levels, operation time, age or gender between the two groups. Four and two patients, respectively, required transfusion postoperatively in the CG and NCG (p = 0.37). There was no difference with respect to LOS, wound infection, haematoma or reoperation rate between the two groups postoperatively. The covariate-adjusted RR for complications and transfusion while being on clopidogrel were 0.43 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.07–2.60] and 3.96 (95 % CI 0.40–39.68), respectively.

Conclusion

Continuing clopidogrel therapy throughout the perioperative period in patients with intracapsular hip fracture is not associated with an increased risk of complications following hip hemiarthroplasty surgery.

Safe surgery: how accurate are we at predicting intra-operative blood loss?

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative estimation of intra-operative blood loss by both anaesthetist and operating surgeon is a criterion of the World Health Organization's surgical safety checklist. The checklist requires specific preoperative planning when anticipated blood loss is greater than 500 mL. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of surgeons and anaesthetists at predicting intra-operative blood loss.

METHODS

A 6-week prospective study of intermediate and major operations in an academic medical centre was performed. An independent observer interviewed surgical and anaesthetic consultants and registrars, preoperatively asking each to predict expected blood loss in millilitre. Intra-operative blood loss was measured and compared with these predictions. Parameters including the use of anticoagulation and anti-platelet therapy as well as intra-operative hypothermia and hypotension were recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-eight operations were included in the study, including 142 elective and 26 emergency operations. Blood loss was predicted to within 500 mL of measured blood loss in 89% of cases. Consultant surgeons tended to underestimate blood loss, doing so in 43% of all cases, while consultant anaesthetists were more likely to overestimate (60% of all operations). Twelve patients (7%) had underestimation of blood loss of more than 500 mL by both surgeon and anaesthetist. Thirty per cent (n = 6/20) of patients requiring transfusion of a blood product within 24 hours of surgery had blood loss underestimated by more than 500 mL by both surgeon and anaesthetist. There was no significant difference in prediction between patients on anti-platelet or anticoagulation therapy preoperatively and those not on the said therapies.

CONCLUSION

Predicted intra-operative blood loss was within 500 mL of measured blood loss in 89% of operations. In 30% of patients who ultimately receive a blood transfusion, both the surgeon and anaesthetist significantly underestimate the risk of blood loss by greater than 500 mL. Theatre staff must be aware that 1 in 14 patients undergoing intermediate or major surgery will have an unexpected blood loss exceeding 500 mL and so robust policies to identify and manage such circumstances should be in place to improve patient safety.

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel: what is the risk in noncardiac surgery? A narrative review

Clopidogrel is one of the most commonly prescribed medications and is currently recommended along with aspirin as treatment to be used for 1 year in all patients without contraindications following an acute coronary syndrome. Patients who are committed to clopidogrel therapy due to recent coronary artery stent implantation may require noncardiac surgery during this recommended period of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Due to differing rates of endothelialization, patients who undergo bare-metal stent implantation generally require ≥ 1 month of uninterrupted DAPT, and those who undergo drug-eluting stent implantation require ≥ 12 months. Many surgeons ask their patients to stop taking clopidogrel in advance of their procedure to decrease perioperative bleeding. This practice is based largely on anecdotal experience and extrapolated from limited data in cardiac surgery. Premature cessation of aspirin and/or clopidogrel following coronary artery stenting, however, has been associated with acute stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and death. We searched PubMed for English language articles published from 1960 to 2012, using the keywords aspirin, clopidogrel, surgery, general, vascular, genitourinary, thoracic, orthopedic, ophthalmologic, dermatologic, endoscopy, colonoscopy, cardiac device implantation, pacemaker, defibrillator, bronchoscopy, bridging, bleeding complications, and transfusion, including various combinations. s were reviewed to confirm relevance, and then the full articles were extracted. References from extracted articles were also reviewed for relevant articles. Literature regarding perioperative clopidogrel continuation is predominantly composed of small, nonrandomized data, but suggests that most noncardiac surgeries or procedures can be performed safely while patients are taking clopidogrel. In this article, we review the current best evidence on the risk for bleeding with clopidogrel therapy in noncardiac surgery, summarize recent guidelines on appropriate duration of DAPT, and make recommendations on the management of perioperative DAPT.

Recommendations for management of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing elective noncardiac surgery after coronary stent implantation

Patients commonly undergo noncardiac surgical procedures after implantation of a coronary stent. In the case where surgery cannot be deferred until completing the minimum duration of dual antiplatelet therapy, the Brigham and Women's Hospital Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory recommends using a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa bridging protocol to minimize the risk of perioperative ischemic events. We discuss our algorithm for managing antiplatelet agents, including the newer agents, prasugrel and ticagrelor, in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery after coronary stenting and present our glycoprotein IIb/IIIa bridging strategy along with a review of the relevant pharmacodynamic and clinical evidence.

The risk of adverse cardiac and bleeding events following noncardiac surgery relative to antiplatelet therapy in patients with prior percutaneous coronary intervention

Noncardiac surgery (NCS) may be required within the first year after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in approximately 4% of patients and is the second most common reason for premature discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy (APT),which may, in turn, increase the risk of perioperative ischemic events, particularly stent thrombosis. Its continuation may increase the risk of perioperative bleeding. We review current information on the incidence of these events, particularly related to APT, describe potentially useful strategies to minimize the risks of adverse outcomes, and provide recommendations on APT use.

Risk of elective major noncardiac surgery after coronary stent insertion: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend that noncardiac surgery be delayed until 30 to 45 days after bare-metal stent implantation and 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used linked registry data and population-based administrative health care databases to conduct a cohort study of 8116 patients (≥40 years of age) who underwent major elective noncardiac surgery in Ontario, Canada between 2003 and 2009, and received coronary stents within 10 years before surgery. Approximately 34% (n=2725) underwent stent insertion within 2 years before surgery, of whom 905 (33%) received drug-eluting stents. For comparison, we assembled a separate cohort of 341 350 surgical patients who had not undergone coronary revascularization. The primary outcome was 30-day major adverse cardiac events (mortality, readmission for acute coronary syndrome, or repeat coronary revascularization). The overall rate of 30-day events in patients with coronary stents was 2.1% (n=170). When the interval between stent insertion and surgery was <45 days, event rates were high for bare-metal (6.7%) and drug-eluting (20.0%) stents. When the interval was 45 to 180 days, the event rate for bare-metal stents was 2.6%, approaching that of intermediate-risk nonrevascularized individuals. Adjusted analyses suggested that event rates were increased if this interval exceeded 180 days. For drug-eluting stents, the event rate was 1.2% once the interval exceeded 180 days, approaching that of intermediate-risk nonrevascularized individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

The earliest optimal time for elective surgery is 46 to 180 days after bare-metal stent implantation or >180 days after drug-eluting stent implantation.

Clinical review: Traumatic brain injury in patients receiving antiplatelet medication

As the population ages, emergency physicians are confronted with a growing number of trauma patients receiving antithrombotic and antiplatelet medication prior to injury. In cases of traumatic brain injury, pre-injury treatment with anticoagulants has been associated with an increased risk of posttraumatic intracranial haemorrhage. Since high age itself is a well-recognised risk factor in traumatic brain injury, this population is at special risk for increased morbidity and mortality. The effects of antiplatelet medication on coagulation pathways in posttraumatic intracranial haemorrhage are not well understood, but available data suggest that the use of these agents increases the risk of an unfavourable outcome, especially in cases of severe traumatic brain injury. Standard laboratory investigations are insufficient to evaluate platelet activity, but new assays for monitoring platelet activity have been developed. Commonly used interventions to restore platelet activity include platelet transfusion and application of haemostatic drugs. Nevertheless, controlled clinical trials have not been carried out and, therefore, clinical practice guidelines are not available. In addition to the risks of the acute trauma, patients are at risk for cardiac events such as life-threatening stent thrombosis if antiplatelet therapy is withdrawn. In this review article, we summarize the pathophysiologic mechanisms of the most commonly used antiplatelet agents and analyse results of studies on the effects of this treatment on patients with traumatic brain injury. Additionally, we focus on opportunities to counteract antiplatelet effects in those patients as well as on considerations regarding the withdrawal of antiplatelet therapy. In those chronically ill patients, an interdisciplinary approach involving intensivists, neurosurgeons as well as cardiologists is often mandatory.

Perioperative antiplatelet management in patients with coronary artery stenting

Coronary artery disease is the primary cause of mortality in men and women in the United States. Transcatheter coronary intervention is the mainstay of treatment for patients with acute coronary artery disease presentations and patients with stable disease. Although percutaneous intervention initially only included balloon angioplasty, it now typically involves the placement of intracoronary stents. To overcome the limitations of bare-metal stents, namely in-stent restenosis, stents have been developed that remove pharmaceuticals that reduce neointimal hyperplasia and in-stent restenosis. However, these pharmaceutical agents also delay stent endothelialization, posing a prolonged risk of in situ thrombosis. Placement of an intracoronary stent (eg, bare-metal or drug-eluting stent) requires dual antiplatelet therapy to prevent the potentially life-threatening complication of stent thrombosis. The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy following stent placement is unknown. This article discusses the factors to be considered when deciding when dual antiplatelet therapy can be safely discontinued. Unfortunately, in the hospital setting, this decision to interrupt dual antiplatelet therapy frequently must be made shortly after stent placement because of unanticipated surgical procedures or other unforeseen complications. The decision of when dual antiplatelet therapy can be safely interrupted needs to be individualized for each patient and involves factoring in the type of stent; the location and complexity of the lesion stented; post-stent lesion characteristics; the amount of time since stent placement; and the antiplatelet regimen currently in use, along with its implication for bleeding during the proposed procedure. Having a protocol in place, such as the protocol described in this article, can help guide this decision-making process and avoid confusion and potential error.

Previous percutaneous coronary intervention increases morbidity after coronary artery bypass grafting

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that the incidence of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasing and that prior PCI influences patient morbidity and mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

A total of 34,316 patients underwent isolated CABG operations at 16 different statewide, institutions from 2001 to 2008. Patients were stratified into prior PCI (n = 4346; 12.7%) and no prior PCI (n = 29,970). Patient risk factors, intraoperative variables, and outcomes were compared by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The incidence of prior PCI in CABG has risen from <1% to 22.0% from 2001 to 2008 (P < .001). Prior PCI patients were younger (P < .001) and more commonly had previous myocardial infarction (P < .001), but less commonly had heart failure (P < .001). The operative mortality was similar between groups (2.3% vs 1.9%; P = .13). Prior PCI patients had more major complications (15.0% vs 12.0%; P < .001), longer hospitalization (P = .01), and higher readmission rates (P = .01). Importantly, by multivariate analyses, prior PCI was not associated with mortality, but was an independent predictor of major complications after CABG (odds ratio, 1.15; P = .01).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of prior PCI in patients undergoing CABG is increasing. Previous PCI is associated with a higher risk of major complications, greater hospital length of stay, and higher readmission rates after CABG.

The avantgarde carbostent in patients scheduled for undelayable noncardiac surgery

Background. Treatment of patients who need coronary revascularization before undelayable non-cardiac surgery is challenging. Methods. We assessed the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) using the Avantgarde( TM) Carbostent (CID, Italy) in patients undergoing PCI before undelayable non-cardiac surgery. The Multiplate analyzer point-of-care was used to assess residual platelet reactivity. One major cardiac events (MACE, defined as death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis and major bleeding) were assessed. Results. 42 consecutive patients were analyzed. Total stent length ≥25 mm was observed in 16 (37%) patients. Multivessel stenting was performed in 11 (31.5%) patients. Clopidogrel was interrupted 5 days before surgery in 35 patients, whereas it was stopped the day of the surgery in 7 patients. Surgery was performed after 27 ± 9 (7-42) days from PCI. MACE occurred in one patient (2.4%; 95% confidence interval: 0.01-13%), who had fatal acute myocardial infarction 3 days after abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery and 12 days after stent implantation. No case of major bleeding in the postoperative phase was observed. Conclusions. The present pilot study suggests that, although at least 10-14 days of dual antiplatelet therapy remain mandatory, the Avantgarde( TM) stent seems to have a role in patients requiring undelayable surgery.

[Perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy in thoracic surgery. A survey of German hospitals]

BACKGROUND

The common practice to stop therapy with acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) and/or clopidogrel perioperatively is critically discussed in the literature. There are no generally accepted guidelines for the handling of this problem. In this article the present strategy of perioperative antiplatelet therapy applied in German thoracic surgery departments was investigated.

METHODS

Questionnaires were sent to the heads of thoracic surgery departments registered in the German Society of Thoracic Surgery (n = 133) inquiring about the handling of aspirin and clopidogrel before elective thoracic surgical procedures. The return ratio was 59% (n = 78).

RESULTS

The analysis of the survey results showed a heterogeneous approach. Of the respondents 51-53% reported stopping aspirin therapy before surgery if the patient was taking aspirin due to a bare metal stent (implantation 3 months before). An even larger number of respondents stopped aspirin therapy before surgery if the patient was taking aspirin due to an ischemic insult or due to peripheral arterial disease with infrainguinal stenting (59-63% and 59-65%, respectively). In the case of drug-eluting stent implantation (implantation 3 months before) 34-41% of the respondents completely stopped the dual antiplatelet therapy before surgery and only 6-8% of the surgeons proceeded with surgery under dual platelet inhibition. Of the thoracic surgeons questioned 28% considered the existing data sufficient to manage this problem. Those surgeons who considered the existing data concerning the management of perioperative antiplatelet therapy as adequate had a stronger tendency to continue the antiplatelet therapy perioperatively. The aspirin and clopidogrel therapy was usually stopped 5-7 days preoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey showed that in Germany the majority of thoracic surgeons reduce or stop antiplatelet therapy (given as secondary prophylaxis) before surgical procedures. It can be assumed that patients are therefore exposed to an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Bridging therapy for early surgery in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate stent-related adverse cardiac events and bleeding complications within 30 days after surgical procedures in patients with recent drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, in whom a bridging protocol was used.

METHODS

In our centre a bridging protocol is used in patients scheduled for cardiac or non-cardiac surgery within 6 months after PCI with DES implantation. Clopidogrel and in some cases also acetylsalicylic acid is discontinued 5 days prior to the planned intervention and patients are admitted 2 to 3 days before the intervention for tirofiban infusion. This is discontinued 4 h before intervention. Close postoperative monitoring is performed and double antiplatelet therapy is restarted as soon as possible. Thirty-six consecutive patients were included in the protocol, 15 receiving coronary artery bypass graft and 21 non-cardiac interventions. Thrombotic and bleeding complications were studied for up to 30 days after the bridged procedure.

RESULTS

No incidences of stent thrombosis or other adverse cardiac events (mortality, myocardial infarction) were seen in up to 30 days of follow-up. However, 6 bleeding events were reported of which 5 required a blood transfusion.

CONCLUSION

Our bridging protocol in patients requiring surgery after recent PCI with DES seems adequate to prevent stent thrombosis in this high-risk group. The bleeding risk is not insignificant but in our patient group controllable without major late sequelae. Larger studies should be performed to establish safety and efficacy in order to develop guidelines for these patients.

A randomised controlled pilot trial to evaluate and optimize the use of anti-platelet agents in the perioperative management in patients undergoing general and abdominal surgery--the APAP trial (ISRCTN45810007)

PURPOSE

Surgeons are increasingly confronted by patients on long-term low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). However, owing to a lack of evidence-based data, a widely accepted consensus on the perioperative management of these patients in the setting of non-cardiac surgery has not yet been reached. Primary objective was to evaluate the safety of continuous versus discontinuous use of ASA in the perioperative period in elective general or abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair or colonic/colorectal surgery were recruited to this pilot study. According to cardiological evaluation, non-high-risk patients who were on long-term treatment with low-dose ASA were eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated randomly to continuous use of ASA or discontinuation of ASA intake for 5 days before until 5 days after surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of major haemorrhagic and thromboembolic complications within 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients were allocated to each study group. One patient (3.8%) in the ASA continuation group required re-operation due to post-operative haemorrhage. In neither study group, further bleeding complications occurred. No clinically apparent thromboembolic events were reported in the ASA continuation and the ASA discontinuation group. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between both study groups in the secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative intake of ASA does not seem to influence the incidence of severe bleeding in non-high-risk patients undergoing elective general or abdominal surgery. Further, adequately powered trials are required to confirm the findings of this study.

Management of patients with recently implanted coronary stents on dual antiplatelet therapy who need to undergo major surgery

About 5% of patients undergoing coronary stenting need to undergo surgery within the next year. The risk of perioperative cardiac ischemic events, particularly stent thrombosis (ST), is high in these patients, because surgery has a prothrombotic effect and antiplatelet therapy is often withdrawn in order to avoid bleeding. The clinical and angiographic predictors of ST are well known, and the proximity to an acute coronary syndrome adds to the risk. The current guidelines recommend delaying non-urgent surgery for at least 6 weeks after the placement of a bare metal stent and for 6-12 months after the placement of a drug-eluting stent, when the risk of ST is reduced. However, in the absence of formal evidence, these recommendations provide little support with regard to managing urgent operations. When surgery cannot be postponed, stratifying the risk of surgical bleeding and cardiac ischemic events is crucial in order to manage perioperative antiplatelet therapy in individual cases. Dual antiplatelet therapy should not be withdrawn for minor surgery or most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Aspirin can be safely continued perioperatively in the case of most major surgery, and provides coronary protection. In the case of interventions at high risk for both bleeding and ischemic events, when clopidogrel withdrawal is required in order to reduce perioperative bleeding, perioperative treatment with the short-acting intravenous glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitor tirofiban is safe in terms of bleeding, and provides strong antithrombotic protection. Such surgical interventions should be performed at hospitals capable of performing an immediate percutaneous coronary intervention at any time in the case of acute myocardial ischemia.

[Diagnostic laparoscopy under dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin]

Dual antiplatelet therapy using aspirin and a thienopyridine (e.g. clopidogrel) is known to be essential in patients in whom percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation has been performed in order to prevent stent thrombosis and its fatal consequences. On the other hand dual antiplatelet therapy increases the incidence of perioperative bleeding complications. In case of urgent or emergency surgery the risk of perioperative stent thrombosis on the one hand and the perioperative bleeding risk on the other has to be evaluated carefully in order to keep time period without sufficient platelet inhibition as short as possible. The presented case offers a strategy for managing perioperative administration of antiplatelet agents.

Perioperative management of patients on clopidogrel (Plavix) undergoing major lung resection

BACKGROUND

Management of patients requiring antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel (Plavix) and major lung resection must balance the risks of bleeding and cardiovascular events. We reviewed our experience with patients treated with clopidogrel perioperatively to examine outcomes, including results of a new strategy for high-risk patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent major lung resection and received perioperative clopidogrel between January 2005 and September 2010 were reviewed. Initially, clopidogrel management consisted of discontinuation approximately 5 days before surgery and resumption immediately after surgery. After July 2010, high-risk patients (drug-eluting coronary stent placement within prior year or previous coronary event after clopidogrel discontinuation) were admitted 2 to 3 days preoperatively and bridged with the intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor eptifibatide (Integrilin) according to a multidisciplinary cardiology/anesthesiology/thoracic surgery protocol. Outcomes were compared with control patients (matched for preoperative risk factors and extent of pulmonary resection) who did not receive perioperative clopidogrel.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients who had major lung resection between January 2005 and September 2010 and received clopidogrel perioperatively were matched with 108 control subjects. Both groups had similar mortality, postoperative length of stay, and no differences in the rates of perioperative transfusions, reoperations for bleeding, myocardial infarctions, and strokes. Seven of the 54 clopidogrel patients were admitted preoperatively for an eptifibatide bridge. Two of these patients received perioperative transfusions, but there were no deaths, reoperations, myocardial infarctions, or stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients taking clopidogrel can safely undergo major lung resection. Treatment with an eptifibatide bridge may minimize the risk of cardiovascular events in higher risk patients.

Systematic review of thienopyridine discontinuation and its impact upon clinical outcomes

The optimal length of clopidogrel therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes or in those who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. We therefore sought to determine the risk of both perioperative and premature discontinuation of clopidogrel. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched January 2000 through March 2010 for articles written in English and reporting adverse clinical events following discontinuation of clopidogrel. Studies of perioperative clopidogrel cessation are mostly observational, but do suggest a hazard for adverse cardiac events. This appears to be especially high in the first month after PCI, but it is unclear whether there is a 'safe' window. Studies of 'premature' clopidogrel discontinuation, although mostly retrospective and statistically flawed, suggest that the first 6 months after stenting are highest risk; discontinuation with drug-eluting stents (DESs) is probably higher risk than with bare metal stents, but most studies are of DESs alone. There are no randomized trials sufficient to determine the optimal length of clopidogrel therapy; future randomized clinical trials may provide more clarity.

Peri-operative platelet function testing: the potential for reducing ischaemic and bleeding risks

The pivotal role of platelet activation and reactivity during atherothrombotic event occurrence associated with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is well established. Numerous translational research studies have established a threshold level of platelet reactivity during dual antiplatelet therapy above which a higher risk for ischaemic event occurrence has been observed. The clinical validity of these threshold values in reducing ischemic event occurrence with modified P2Y12 receptor therapy is currently under investigation in large-scale clinical trials. The association between on-treatment platelet reactivity measured by an ex vivo assay and the occurrence of bleeding events is less established. Currently, there is limited evidence of an association between platelet inhibition and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)- related bleeding in patients on clopidogrel therapy indicating that preoperative platelet function monitoring may guide both the timing of elective CABG and the administration of blood products in patients needing surgery. However, in the absence of a large-scale prospective clinical trial, routine platelet function monitoring and modification of timing of surgery based on platelet function monitoring are currently not recommended.