Impact of bleeding severity on clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes

Temporal Trends and Outcomes Associated with Major Bleeding in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Decade-Long Perspective from the Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Surveys 2000-2010

Objectives: The implementation of an early invasive approach and the increased use of potent anti-thrombotic drugs have resulted in higher rates of major bleeding events (MBE) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). There are limited data on the temporal trends for the rates of MBE over the last decade and associated outcomes. Methods: Rates, characteristics, risk factors and clinical outcomes associated with MBE were assessed among 11,538 patients enrolled in the biennial Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Surveys (ACSIS) 2000-2010. Results: A total of 143 patients (1.2%) experienced MBE during the index hospitalization for ACS. There was a significant increase in the risk of MBE in the late (2006-2010) versus the early (2000-2004) surveys (0.9 and 1.6% respectively, adjusted OR 1.86, p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with a significant increase in the risk of MBE included undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 2.21, p < 0.005), experiencing renal failure (OR 4.19, p < 0.001) and systolic blood pressure level at admission (OR 1.12, per 10- mm Hg decrement, p = 0.011). Patients who experienced MBE had a >3.5-fold increased risk for 1-year mortality (adjusted HR = 3.52, p < 0.001). Interestingly, the mortality risk associated with MBE was evident only among those who experienced non-access-site bleeding (HR = 1.9; p = 0.001). Conclusions: In the past decade, there has been a significant increase in the rate of MBE. However, we found that only major bleeding that was not related to the vascular access site affected subsequent mortality.

Antiplatelet Therapy in Hemodialysis Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Context:

Coronary artery disease is highly prevalent among patients with end stage renal disease/hemodialysis (ESRD/HD) and coronary percutaneous interventions (PCI) has been increased by nearly 50% over the past decade. After PCI with stent placement, guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), but no specifically tailored pharmacotherapy approach is outlined for this frail population, mostly excluded from large randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Evidence Acquisition:

We reviewed current evidences on the use of antiplatelet therapy in patients with ESRD/HD undergoing PCI, focusing on the efficacy and safety of specific agents and their indications for detailed clinical settings.

Results:

Clinical setting in HD patients is the principal determinant of the type, onset, combination and duration of the DAPT. However, irrespective clinical setting, in addition to aspirin, clopidogrel is currently the most used antiplatelet agent even if no information derived from RCTs are available in ESRD. Due to the large experience acquired in routine clinical practice, the awareness of safety is higher for clopidogrel than newer antiplatelet agents. Because of lack of data, the use of prasugrel and ticagrelor is actually not recommended. However, in case of high ischemic and acceptable bleeding risk, they may be selectively used in ESRD/HD.

Conclusions:

This investigation might contribute to delineate the best treatment options for this high risk population.

Association of spontaneous bleeding and myocardial infarction with long-term mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Platelet inhibition after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) but increases the risk of bleeding. MIs and bleeds during the index hospitalization for PCI are known to negatively affect long-term outcomes. The impact of spontaneous bleeding occurring after discharge on long-term mortality is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine, in a real-world cohort, the association between spontaneous major bleeding or MI after PCI and long-term mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients ≥30 years of age who underwent a PCI between 1996 and 2008 in an integrated healthcare delivery system. We used extended Cox regression to examine the associations of spontaneous bleeding and MI with all-cause mortality, after adjustment for time-updated demographics, comorbidities, periprocedural events, and longitudinal medication exposure.

RESULTS

Among 32,906 patients who had a PCI and survived the index hospitalization, 530 had bleeds and 991 had MIs between 7 and 365 days post-discharge. There were 4,048 deaths over a mean follow-up of 4.42 years. The crude annual death rate after a spontaneous bleed (9.5%) or MI (7.6%) was higher than among patients who experienced neither event (2.6%). Bleeding was associated with an increased rate of death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.30 to 2.00), similar to that after an MI (HR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.62 to 2.25). The association of bleeding with death remained significant after additional adjustment for the longitudinal use of antiplatelet agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Spontaneous bleeding after a PCI was independently associated with higher long-term mortality, and conveyed a risk comparable to that of an MI during follow-up. This tradeoff between efficacy and safety bolsters the argument for personalizing antiplatelet therapy after PCI on the basis of the patient's long-term risk of both thrombotic and bleeding events.

Comparison of ACUITY and CRUSADE Scores in Predicting Major Bleeding during Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background

The ACUITY and CRUSADE scores are validated models for prediction of major bleeding events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the comparative performances of these scores are not known.

Objective

To compare the accuracy of ACUITY and CRUSADE in predicting major bleeding events during ACS.

Methods

This study included 519 patients consecutively admitted for unstable angina, non-ST-elevation or ST-elevation myocardial infarction. The scores were calculated based on admission data. We considered major bleeding events during hospitalization and not related to cardiac surgery, according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria (type 3 or 5: hemodynamic instability, need for transfusion, drop in hemoglobin ≥ 3 g, and intracranial, intraocular or fatal bleeding).

Results

Major bleeding was observed in 31 patients (23 caused by femoral puncture, 5 digestive, 3 in other sites), an incidence of 6%. While both scores were associated with bleeding, ACUITY demonstrated better C-statistics (0.73, 95% CI = 0.63 - 0.82) as compared with CRUSADE (0.62, 95% CI = 0.53 - 0.71; p = 0.04). The best performance of ACUITY was also reflected by a net reclassification improvement of + 0.19 (p = 0.02) over CRUSADE’s definition of low or high risk. Exploratory analysis suggested that the presence of the variables ‘age’ and ‘type of ACS’ in ACUITY was the main reason for its superiority.

Conclusion

The ACUITY Score is a better predictor of major bleeding when compared with the CRUSADE Score in patients hospitalized for ACS.

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Receptor Inhibitors in Combination With Vorapaxar, a Platelet Thrombin Receptor Antagonist, Among Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes (from the TRACER Trial)

We evaluated the interaction between protease-activated receptor-1 antagonist vorapaxar and concomitant glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes who underwent PCI. In Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome trial, 12,944 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes were randomized to vorapaxar or placebo. Administration of GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors was allowed at the treating physician's discretion. We investigated whether use of GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors modified vorapaxar's effect on non-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-related bleeding at 7 days and ischemic events at 30 days. In total, 7,455 patients underwent PCI during index hospitalization. Of these, 2,023 patients (27.1%) received inhibitors and 5,432 (72.9%) did not. Vorapaxar was associated with a numerically higher rate of non-CABG-related moderate/severe Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries (GUSTO) bleeding at 7 days compared with placebo in those who did (1.3% vs 1.0%) and did not (0.6% vs 0.4%) receive GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors. Ischemic end point rates at 30 days were not significantly lower with vorapaxar versus placebo. Increased rates of non-CABG GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding were observed in patients who received GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors versus those who did not (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 7.35 in placebo arm; adjusted HR 2.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.61 in vorapaxar arm) and in those who received vorapaxar versus placebo (adjusted HR 1.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 6.56 in the GP IIb/IIIa group; adjusted HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.44 to 4.07 in the no-GP IIb/IIIa group). No interaction was found between vorapaxar and inhibitor use up to 7 days (P interaction = 0.89) nor at the end of the treatment (P interaction = 0.74); however, the event rate was low. Also, no interaction was observed for efficacy end points after PCI at 30 days or at the end of the treatment. In conclusion, GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor use plus dual antiplatelet therapy in a population with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction planned for PCI was frequent but did not interact with vorapaxar's efficacy or safety. Nonetheless, GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors and vorapaxar were associated with increased bleeding risk, and their combined use may result in additive effects on bleeding rates.

A comparison of radial and femoral access for cardiac catheterization

Over the past several years, the transradial approach (TRA) for cardiac catheterization has become increasingly adopted in the United States. The increased utilization of the TRA is grounded on 2 decades of research, showing reduced bleeding and vascular complications to complement improved patient quality of life. However, the concern over cost, radiation exposure, and acknowledged "learning curve" has kept the transfemoral approach (TFA) the mainstay of most US catheterization laboratories. More recent larger multi-centered randomized studies have aimed to address outcomes and these concerns between the TR and TF approaches. This article will review the changing trends in TRA in the US, discuss clinical (bleeding and mortality) and non-clinical (quality of life and cost) outcomes from recent randomized studies, and finally discuss certain aspects when it comes to adopting TRA.

Antithrombotic drugs, patient characteristics, and gastrointestinal bleeding: Clinical translation and areas of research

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a potentially fatal and avoidable medical condition that poses a burden on global health care costs. Current understanding of the roles of platelet activation and thrombin generation/activity in vascular medicine has led to the development of effective antithrombotic treatments. However, in parallel with a sustained coronary and cerebral flow patency, the increasingly intensive treatment with warfarin; direct oral anticoagulant drugs [DOACs], and/or with aspirin ± clopidogrel (or ± prasugrel or ± ticagrelor), has increased the burden of GIBs related to the use of antithrombotic agents. Compelling evidence concerning this issue is accumulating to indicate that: 1) the risk of GIB related to the use of antithrombotic drugs dramatically differs in different clinical settings; and 2) the characteristics of patients (e.g., severity of illness, comorbidities) in whom it is used exert a greater impact on the risk of GIB than the type of antithrombotic agent employed. The latter concept argues for the occurrence of GIB as reflecting the presence of patients at the highest risk for adverse outcomes. The HAS-BLED score identifies subjects at risk of bleeding among those untreated and those treated with warfarin, DOACs and/or low-dose aspirin. Its use within the frame of a severity score (e.g., the CHA2DS2-VASc score in patients with atrial fibrillation) helps balance the benefits and the risks of an antithrombotic treatment and identify those patients in whom the absolute gain (vascular events prevented) outweighs the risk of GIB. Potential implications of the latter information in settings other than atrial fibrillation is thoroughly discussed.

Influence of Access, Anticoagulant, and Bleeding Definition on Outcomes of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Early Experience of an US Academic Center

Background We aimed to carry out comparison of different bleeding avoidance strategies in doing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) using either radial or femoral as access of choice and either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin as anticoagulant of choice. In this analysis, we analyzed the influence of major bleeding definition on bleeding outcomes as well. Methods We did a retrospective analysis of 139 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who had PPCI in our academic center from January 2010 till October 2013. The primary outcome at 30 days was a composite of death from any cause or stent thrombosis or non-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) related major bleeding (CathPCI Registry definition) and secondary outcomes were individual components of primary outcome and the hospital length of stay. Results There was no significant difference among different access/anticoagulant combinations with regards to primary outcome (22% in radial/bivalirudin vs. 5% in radial/heparin vs. 17% in femoral/bivalirudin vs. 28% in femoral/heparin group; p = 0.2) as well as its individual components except the hospital length of stay (2.56 vs. 3 vs. 3.97 vs. 4.4 days each; p < 0.0001). The overall rate of major bleeding was 11.5%. When we use HORIZON-AMI bleeding definition, it went up to 25 % due to one particular component (p < 0.004). Conclusions This single center observational study doing PPCI did not show any superiority of one bleeding avoidance strategy over others with regard to primary outcome and its individual components except the hospital length of stay. It also shows the importance of bleeding definition on bleeding outcomes.

Comparison of heparin and bivalirudin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention without use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study is the compare the association between bleeding and the use unfractionated heparin (UFH) versus bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing PCI, the risk of bleeding with use of bivalirudin compared with UFH in the absence of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors is not well defined.

METHODS

Patients undergoing PCI with either UFH or bivalirudin monotherapy at a single institution between 2007 and 2014 were included (n = 6,143). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for baseline characteristics yielding 2,984 well matched patients (1,492 in each group). The primary endpoint was major non-coronary artery bypass graft (non-CABG) related bleeding as defined by a Bleeding Academic Consortium type 3 or 5. Secondary outcomes included combined major and minor bleeding, in-hospital death, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and recurrent ischemia requiring urgent revascularization (repeat PCI).

RESULTS

In the propensity matched cohort, there was no difference in major bleeding between UFH and bivalirudin monotherapy (1.8% versus 2.4%, P = 0.305). Combined major and minor bleeding was also similar between the two groups (4.3% versus 4.3%, P = 1.0). Likewise, no differences were observed between the bivalirudin and UFH groups in terms of in-hospital death (0.4% versus 0.5%, P = 0.592), periprocedural myocardial infarction (1.5% versus 2.0%, P = 0.332) and repeat PCI (0.7% versus 0.8%, P = 0.669).

CONCLUSION

Among patients undergoing PCI, there was no significant difference in rate of bleeding between bivalirudin and heparin monotherapy in a real-world setting.

Effect of anemia on frequency of short- and long-term clinical events in acute coronary syndromes (from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy Trial)

There are limited data on the impact of anemia on clinical outcomes in unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with an early invasive strategy. We sought to determine the short- and long-term clinical events among patients with and without anemia enrolled in the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial. Anemia was defined as baseline hemoglobin of <13 g/dl for men and <12 g/dl for women. The primary end points were composite ischemia (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia) and major bleeding assessed in-hospital, at 1 month, and at 1 year. Among the 13,819 patients in the ACUITY trial, information regarding anemia was available in 13,032 (94.3%), 2,199 of whom (16.9%) had anemia. Patients with anemia compared with those without anemia had significantly increased adverse event rates in-hospital (composite ischemia 6.6% vs 4.8%, p = 0.0004; major bleeding 7.3% vs 3.3%, p <0.0001), at 1 month (composite ischemia 10% vs 7.2%, p <0.0001, major bleeding 8.8% vs 3.9%, p <0.0001), and 1 year (composite ischemia 21.7% vs 15.3%, p <0.0001). Anemia was an independent predictor of death at 1 year (hazard ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29 to 2.44, p = 0.0005). Composite ischemia was significantly more common among patients who developed in-hospital non-coronary artery bypass surgery major bleeding compared with those who did not (anemic patients 1-year relative risk 2.19, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.88, p <0.0001; nonanemic patients relative risk 2.16, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.65, p <0.0001). In conclusion, in the ACUITY trial, baseline anemia was strongly associated with adverse early and late clinical events, especially in those who developed major bleeding.

Prognostic value of angiographic lesion complexity in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (from the acute catheterization and urgent intervention triage strategy trial)

Although lesion complexity is predictive of outcomes after balloon angioplasty, it is unclear whether complex lesions continue to portend a worse prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary interventional therapies. We sought to assess the impact of angiographic lesion complexity, defined by the modified American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification, on clinical outcomes after PCI in patients with ACS and to determine whether an interaction exists between lesion complexity and antithrombin regimen outcomes after PCI. Among the 3,661 patients who underwent PCI in the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategy study, patients with type C lesions (n = 1,654 [45%]) had higher 30-day rates of mortality (1.2% vs 0.6%, p = 0.049), myocardial infarction (9.2% vs 6.3%, p = 0.0006), and unplanned revascularization (4.3% vs 3.1%, p = 0.04) compared with those without type C lesions. In multivariate analysis, type C lesions were independently associated with myocardial infarction (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.37 [1.04 to 1.80], p = 0.02) and composite ischemia (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.49 [1.17 to 1.88], p = 0.001) at 30 days. Bivalirudin monotherapy compared with heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor reduced major bleeding complications with similar rates of composite ischemic events, regardless of the presence of type C lesions. There were no interactions between antithrombotic regimens and lesion complexity in terms of composite ischemia and major bleeding (p [interaction] = 0.91 and 0.80, respectively). In conclusion, patients with ACS with type C lesion characteristics undergoing PCI have an adverse short-term prognosis. Treatment with bivalirudin monotherapy reduces major hemorrhagic complications irrespective of lesion complexity with comparable suppression of adverse ischemic events as heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor.

[Procedural aspects in primary PCI: arterial access, stent selection, thrombectomy and treatment of non-culprit lesions]

Acute myocardial infarction was one of the most common causes of death in Germany in 2011. According to the guidelines of the European Society for Cardiology, systemic fibrinolysis and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are the methods of choice for acute treatment. Primary PCI should be given priority due to its superiority. The transradial access should be preferred due to the lower bleeding complication rate. In the selection of stents the new generation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are superior to the first generation of bare metal stents (BMS). It has now been demonstrated that the incident rates of DES (e.g. mortality, target vessel revascularization, early and late stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction) are significantly lower. For bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) long-term results for the use in treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are not yet available but initial results are very promising. However, the selection of a stent needs to be done on an individual basis in order to do justice to all aspects. Data with respect to thrombectomy in acute treatment are heterogeneous. Currently, a thorough consideration of all aspects is necessary because thrombus aspiration can also be associated with an increased rate of incidents. In a state of hemodynamic stability only so-called culprit lesions should currently be treated with a stent. Elective interventions on further stenoses should be carried out after consideration of individual factors and if necessary evaluation of the hemodynamic relevance.

Impact of in-hospital bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification on the long-term adverse outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents on long-term clinical events according to the newly proposed Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification.

BACKGROUND

Current evidence about the impact of the BARC classification is limited.

METHODS

Out of a total of 6,166 patients who underwent PCI in a prospective IRIS-DES registry, the impact of in-hospital bleeding defined as the BARC classification on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) comprising death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke was analyzed.

RESULTS

In-hospital bleeding occurred in 235 patients (3.8%) according to BARC classification. During the 2-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 599 patients (9.7%). The 2-year incidence of MACE was significantly higher in patients with bleeding (16.7% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.3; P = 0.002) than in those without bleeding. We observed a higher risk of MI (12.4% vs. 6.4%; adjusted HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.6, P = 0.005), stroke (3.0% vs. 0.6%; adjusted HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.4-6.2, P = 0.005) in patients with bleeding. Death (3.8% vs. 1.6%; adjusted HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.9-3.0, P = 0.120) and target vessel revascularization (4.3% vs. 1.9%; adjusted HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.9-2.9, P = 0.108) were statistically insignificant. Incidence, adjusted HR and P-value were similar between BARC and TIMI classification.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital bleeding events according to the newly proposed BARC definition were significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse long-term events in patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Relative performance of three formulas to assess renal function at predicting in-hospital hemorrhagic complications in an acute coronary syndrome population. What does the new CKD-EPI formula provide?

AIMS

Assessment of renal function is important for bleeding risk stratification in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). There are three formulas routinely used to assess renal function: the Cockroft-Gault (C-G) formula, the MDRD-4 formula and the new Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation. Our aim was to compare the ability of these formulas to predict the risk of in-hospital bleeding in patients with ACS.

METHODS

The study included 3270 patients with ACS. The performance of each formula with respect to in-hospital TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) major or TIMI minor bleeding were assessed using continuous data and by dividing patients into four subgroups according to the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): ≥90, 89-60, 30-59 and <30 ml/min/1.73 m(2).

RESULTS

Bleeding predictive ability was significantly higher for the C-G formula than for MDRD-4 and CKD-EPI formulas, as evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC); continuous eGFR AUCs: 0.73, 0.69 and 0.71, respectively; categorical eGFR AUCs: 0.71, 0.66 and 0.68, respectively. Net reclassification improvement based on the eGFR categories was significantly positively favored C-G: 9.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-17.2%) and 19.1% (95% CI 11.3-26.9%) compared with CKD-EPI and MDRD-4, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, the C-G formula predicted in-hospital bleeding better than MDRD-4 formula (severe renal dysfunction vs. normal renal function: odds ratio 7.98, 95% CI 2.61-24.38 with C-G; odds ratio 3.76, 95% CI 1.63-8.69 with MDRD-4; and odds ratio 5.77, 95% CI 2.18-15.24 with CKD-EPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the C-G eGFR may improve risk prediction of in-hospital bleeding more than the MDRD-4 equation and the new CKD-EPI equation in patients with ACS.

Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the safety and efficacy of radial access compared with femoral access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND

Numerous randomized controlled trials, including several new studies, have compared outcomes of these approaches in the context of primary PCI for STEMI patients with inconclusive results.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare outcomes in STEMI patients undergoing radial versus femoral access for primary PCI. Primary outcomes were death and major bleeding evaluated at the longest available follow-up. Secondary outcomes included access site bleeding, stroke, and procedure time. Twelve studies (N = 5,055) were included. All trials were conducted in centers experienced with both approaches.

RESULTS

Compared with femoral approach, radial approach was associated with decreased risk of mortality (2.7% vs. 4.7%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 0.76; p < 0.001) and decreased risk of major bleeding (1.4% vs. 2.9%; OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.85; p = 0.01). Radial access was also associated with reduction in relative risk of access site bleeding (2.1% vs. 5.6%; OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.50; p < 0.001). Stroke risk was similar between both approaches (0.5% vs. 0.5%; OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.54; p = 0.87). The procedure time was slightly longer in the radial group than in the femoral group (mean difference: 1.52 min; 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.70, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, the radial approach is associated with favorable outcomes and should be the preferred approach for experienced radial operators.

The prognostic value of bleeding academic research consortium (BARC)-defined bleeding complications in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a comparison with the TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction), GUSTO (Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries), and ISTH (International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis) bleeding classifications

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present analysis was to compare 1-year mortality prediction of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC)-defined bleeding complications with existing bleeding definitions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and to investigate the prognostic value of the individual data elements of the bleeding classifications for 1-year mortality.

BACKGROUND

BARC recently proposed a novel standardized bleeding definition.

METHODS

The in-hospital occurrence of bleeding defined according to the BARC, TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction), GUSTO (Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries), and ISTH (International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis) bleeding classifications was assessed in 2,002 STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention between January 1, 2003, and July 31, 2008.

RESULTS

BARC types 2, 3, 4, and 5 bleeding occurred in 4.4%, 14.2%, 1.4%, and 0.3% of patients, respectively. By multivariable analysis, GUSTO- and ISTH-defined bleeding was not significantly associated with 1-year mortality, whereas TIMI major and BARC type 3b or 3c bleeding conferred a 2-fold higher risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratios [HRs]: 2.00 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32 to 3.01] and 1.84 [95% CI: 1.23 to 2.77], respectively). Data elements most strongly associated with mortality were a hemoglobin decrease ≥5 g/dl (HR: 1.94 [95% CI: 1.26 to 2.98]), the use of vasoactive agents for bleeding (HR: 2.01 [95% CI: 0.91 to 4.44]), cardiac tamponade (HR: 2.38 [95% CI: 0.56 to 10.1]), and intracranial hemorrhage (HRs for 1-year mortality were not computable because there was only 1 patient with intracranial bleeding).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the BARC and TIMI bleeding classification identified STEMI patients at risk of 1-year mortality.

Dual antiplatelet therapy over 6 months increases the risk of bleeding after biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus eluting stents implantation: insights from the CREATE study

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains controversial. The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of optimal DAPT duration on bleeding events between 6 and 12 months after biodegradable polymer-coated DES implantation. The secondary aim is to determine the predictors and prognostic implications of bleeding.

METHODS

This study is a post hoc analysis of the Multi-Center Registry of EXCEL Biodegradable Polymer Drug Eluting Stents (CREATE) study population. A total of 2,040 patients surviving at 6 months were studied, including 1,639 (80.3%) who had received 6-month DAPT and 401 (19.7%) who had received DAPT greater than 6 months. Bleeding events were defined according to the bleeding academic research consortium (BARC) definitions as described previously and were classified as major/minor (BARC 2-5) and minimal (BARC 1). A left censored method with a landmark at 6 months was used to determine the incidence, predictors, and impact of bleeding on clinical prognosis between 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

At 1-year follow-up, patients who received prolonged DAPT longer than 6 months had a significantly higher incidence of overall (3.0% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.021) and major/minor bleeding (1.1% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.050) compared to the patients who received 6-month DAPT. Multivariate analysis showed that being elderly (OR = 1.882, 95% CI: 1.109-3.193, P = 0.019), having diabetes (OR = 1.735, 95% CI: 1.020-2.952, P = 0.042), having a history of coronary artery disease (OR = 2.163, 95% CI: 1.097-4.266, P = 0.026), and duration of DAPT longer than 6 months (OR = 1.814, 95% CI: 1.064-3.091, P = 0.029) were independent predictors of bleeding. Patients with bleeding events had a significantly higher incidence of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged DAPT (greater than 6 months) after biodegradable polymer-coated DES increases the risk of bleeding, and is associated with adverse cardiac events at 1-year follow-up. (J Interven Cardiol 2014;27:119-126).

Unanswered questions in patients with concurrent atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome

The best regimen for the long-term management of patients with atrial fibrillation who present with an acute coronary syndrome or require placement of a coronary stent remains unclear. Clinicians need to understand the risk of stroke, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding associated with treating these patients. Numerous studies and risk assessment schemes provide clinicians with an estimation of the risk of stroke, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding that may be associated with the use or avoidance of dual antiplatelet therapy with concurrent anticoagulation therapy (triple therapy). This review discusses the special antithrombotic needs in patients who have atrial fibrillation and either acute coronary syndrome or a requirement for percutaneous coronary intervention, including the published evidence for non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants, and the unanswered questions in this patient population. In conclusion, until the results of additional ongoing or planned randomized trials are known, clinicians must continue to rely on expert opinion and their own clinical judgment when treating these patients.

Impact of baseline hemorrhagic risk on the benefit of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in patients treated with coronary angioplasty: a meta-regression analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Bivalirudin significantly reduces 30-day major and minor bleeding compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH), while resulting in similar or lower rates of ischemic events in both patients with stable and unstable coronary disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials to evaluate the impact of bivalirudin compared with UFH, with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPI), on the rates of mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and major bleeding.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials with >100 patients comparing bivalirudin (±provisional GPI) with UFH with either routine or provisional GPI in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The principal efficacy end points were mortality and MI within 30 day, whereas major bleeding was the principal safety end point. We assessed the benefit of bivalirudin for each efficacy end point relative to the baseline bleeding risk, using the control (UFH) major bleeding rate as proxy for that risk.

RESULTS

A total of 12 randomized trials that enrolled 33,261 patients were included. Overall, there was no significant difference in mortality and MI between bivalirudin monotherapy and UFH (±GPI), whereas major bleeding was significantly lower with bivalirudin. Bivalirudin reduced major and minor bleeding across the entire bleeding risk spectrum.

CONCLUSIONS

Bivalirudin significantly reduces major and minor bleeding regardless of the estimated baseline hemorrhagic risk.

Major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention and risk of subsequent mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To examine the relationship between periprocedural bleeding complications and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and mortality outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and study differences in the prognostic impact of different bleeding definitions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of PCI studies that evaluated periprocedural bleeding complications and their impact on MACEs and mortality outcomes. A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted to identify relevant studies. Data from relevant studies were extracted and random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the risk of adverse outcomes with periprocedural bleeding. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by considering the I(2) statistic.

RESULTS

42 relevant studies were identified including 533 333 patients. Meta-analysis demonstrated that periprocedural major bleeding complications was independently associated with increased risk of mortality (OR 3.31 (2.86 to 3.82), I(2)=80%) and MACEs (OR 3.89 (3.26 to 4.64), I(2)=42%). A differential impact of major bleeding as defined by different bleeding definitions on mortality outcomes was observed, in which the REPLACE-2 (OR 6.69, 95% CI 2.26 to 19.81), STEEPLE (OR 6.59, 95% CI 3.89 to 11.16) and BARC (OR 5.40, 95% CI 1.74 to 16.74) had the worst prognostic impacts while HORIZONS-AMI (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.05) had the least impact on mortality outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Major bleeding after PCI is independently associated with a threefold increase in mortality and MACEs outcomes. Different contemporary bleeding definitions have differential impacts on mortality outcomes, with 1.5-6.7-fold increases in mortality observed depending on the definition of major bleeding used.

Increased risk of minor bleeding and antiplatelet therapy cessation in patients with acute coronary syndromes and low on-aspirin platelet reactivity. A prospective cohort study

Bleeding negatively affects prognosis and adherence to antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). The potential association of on-aspirin platelet reactivity and bleeding is not established. We sought to determine whether low on-aspirin platelet reactivity (LAPR) is associated with bleeding events and antiplatelet therapy compliance in patients with ACSs receiving coronary stenting. On-aspirin platelet reactivity was measured by the VerifyNow™ Aspirin assay (Accumetrics Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) in 531 patients with ACS. Cut-offs for LAPR were calculated by receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. Bleeding was reported according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition. The endpoints were minor bleeding (BARC types 1 or 2), major bleeding (BARC types 3 or 5) and antiplatelet therapy cessation during 6-months follow-up. By ROC analysis the VerifyNow™ Aspirin assay was able to distinguish between patients with and without minor bleeding (area under the curve [AUC] 0.66, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.70, P < 0.0001) whereas major bleeding could not be predicted by the assay (AUC 0.54, 95 % CI 0.49-0.58, P = 0.473). By logistic regression, LAPR was associated with increased risk of minor bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 4.32, 95 % CI 2.78-6.71, P < 0.0001) but not major bleeding (OR 2.05, 95 % CI 0.83-5.06, P = 0.117). Antiplatelet therapy discontinuation was more frequent in patients with LAPR as compared to those with no LAPR (21.6 vs. 9.1 %, P = 0.0008). In conclusion, early point-of-care on-aspirin platelet reactivity testing in ACS may identify patients with increased risk of minor bleeding events and subsequent discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. The possible impact of LAPR on major bleeding needs to be determined in larger trials.

Scientific foundation and possible implications for practice of the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site andSystemic Implementation of AngioX (MATRIX) trial

Early invasive management and the use of combined antithrombotic therapies have decreased the risk of recurrent ischaemia in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) but have also increased the bleeding risk. Transradial intervention (TRI) and bivalirudin infusion compared to transfemoral intervention (TFI) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) decrease bleeding complications in patients with ACS. To what extent, a bleeding preventive strategy incorporating at least one of these two treatment options translates into improved outcomes is a matter of debate. The Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX study is a large-scale, multicenter, prospective, open-label trial, conducted at approximately 100 sites in Europe aiming to primarily assess whether TRI and bivalirudin infusion, as compared to TFI and UFH plus provisional GPI, decrease the 30-day incidence of death, myocardial infarction or stroke across the whole spectrum of ACS patients.

Comparative effectiveness of upstream glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes: an Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) substudy

BACKGROUND

Tirofiban and eptifibatide are both small-molecule, competitive glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPIs) that are guideline-supported for upstream therapy in acute coronary syndromes (ACS). This study sought to compare the efficacy and safety of tirofiban and eptifibatide in patients with ACS.

METHODS

Within the ACUITY trial, 4,323 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS received upstream, adjunctive GPI (tirofiban or eptifibatide) in addition to an antithrombin. Primary outcomes included 30-day rates of composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE), major bleeding (not related to coronary artery bypass grafting), and composite net adverse clinical events (NACE). The outcomes were compared based on the upstream GPI administered.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in the baseline characteristics of patients treated with tirofiban vs eptifibatide, particularly related to country/region. In unadjusted analyses, treatment with upstream tirofiban vs eptifibatide was associated with similar rates of major bleeding (5.8% vs 6.5%, P = .39) and nonsignificantly lower rates of MACE (6.1% vs 7.6%, P = .06) and NACE (10.6% vs 12.6%, P = .06). After propensity-based multivariable adjustment, there were no significant differences between tirofiban and eptifibatide with respect to 30-day major bleeding, MACE, or NACE.

CONCLUSIONS

Among more than 4,000 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS treated with upstream GPI as part of an early invasive management strategy, the use of tirofiban and eptifibatide resulted in similar clinical outcomes. These data suggest equivalence of these 2 agents for upstream use, while highlighting some of the difficulties of nonrandomized comparative effectiveness analyses, specifically the difficulty in addressing geographic differences in the use of nonrandomized treatments.

Design and rationale of the AngioSeal versus the Radial approach In acute coronary SyndromE (ARISE) trial: a randomized comparison of a vascular closure device versus the radial approach to prevent vascular access site complications in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients

Background

Arterial access is a major site of bleeding complications after invasive coronary procedures. Among strategies to decrease vascular complications, the radial approach is an established one. Vascular closure devices provide more comfort to patients and decrease hemostasis and need for bed rest. However, the inconsistency of data proving their safety limits their routine adoption as a strategy to prevent vascular complications, requiring evidence through adequately designed randomized trials. The aim of this study is to compare the radial versus femoral approach using a vascular closure device for the incidence of arterial puncture site vascular complications among non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients submitted to an early invasive strategy.

Methods

ARISE is a national, multicenter, non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. Two hundred patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome will be randomized to either radial or femoral access using a vascular closure device. The primary outcome is the occurrence of vascular complications at an arterial puncture site 30 days after the procedure, including major bleeding, retroperitoneal hematoma, compartment syndrome, hematoma ≥ 5 cm, pseudoaneurysm, arterio-venous fistula, infection, limb ischemia, arterial occlusion, adjacent nerve injury or the need for vascular surgical repair.

Results

Enrollment was initiated in September 2012, and until October 2013 91 patients were included. The inclusion phase is expected to last until the second half of 2014.

Conclusions

The ARISE trial will help define the role of a vascular closure device as a bleeding avoidance strategy in patients with NSTEACS.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01653587