Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in elective percutaneous coronary intervention

Complications of Radial vs Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: What Do the Data Tell Us?

In the last decades, radial access, as an alternative to femoral access, has rapidly evolved and emerged as the preferred vascular access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The use of radial access for PCI can reduce access-site bleeding, particularly retroperitoneal bleeding, and risk of developing pseudoaneurysm, while also improving patient comfort after procedure (eg, early ambulation). However, radial access requires a longer learning curve to develop technical skills, and the data on radial artery graft for coronary artery bypass graft after radial access remain insufficient. Further, recent clinical trials have shown conflicts regarding whether radial access is associated with lower mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Despite these recent investigations, it is still debated whether there are benefits associated with radial access over femoral access for PCI. In this review, we will evaluate radial access compared with femoral access for PCI on clinical outcomes and further discuss the usefulness of radial access.

Safety and Efficacy of Enoxaparin During Low-Risk Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the most frequently used anticoagulant for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Intravenous enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, has superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties compared with UFH. Multiple trials have shown enoxaparin to be safe and effective in PCI. However, there has not been a contemporary study evaluating its safety and efficacy. To assess its efficacy and safety, intravenous enoxaparin during PCI through radial artery access was evaluated in PCI patients from January 2015 to December 2019. Outcomes included procedural success, all-cause mortality, ischemic complications, and bleeding complications from the time of the procedure until hospital discharge. A total of 1019 consecutive eligible patients were identified. Median age was 63 years, and 70% were men. The indication for PCI was stable and unstable angina in two-thirds of cases (77%). Few patients had myocardial infarction (MI) (2.2%) as the indication for intervention. The procedure was successful in 98.2% of cases. There were no deaths. Procedural MI occurred in 0.3% of patients. Acute stent thrombosis occurred in 0.4%. Urgent revascularization and stroke occurred in 0.1% each. Small wrist hematomas occurred in 0.3% and all were managed conservatively. There was one radial artery pseudoaneurysm. There were no cases of major bleeding. In conclusion, this single-center study showed that intravenous enoxaparin is a reasonable alternative anticoagulant for use in low-risk and elective non-MI PCI through radial artery access.

Postprocedural Anticoagulation After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

BACKGROUND

Postprocedural anticoagulation (PPA) is frequently administered after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, although no conclusive data support this practice.

METHODS

The RIGHT trial (Comparison of Anticoagulation Prolongation vs no Anticoagulation in STEMI Patients After Primary PCI) was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, superiority trial conducted at 53 centers in China. Patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned by center to receive low-dose PPA or matching placebo for at least 48 hours. Before trial initiation, each center selected 1 of 3 PPA regimens (40 mg of enoxaparin once daily subcutaneously; 10 U·kg·h of unfractionated heparin intravenously, adjusted to maintain activated clotting time between 150 and 220 seconds; or 0.2 mg·kg·h of bivalirudin intravenously). The primary efficacy objective was to demonstrate superiority of PPA to reduce the primary efficacy end point of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, stent thrombosis (definite), or urgent revascularization (any vessel) within 30 days. The key secondary objective was to evaluate the effect of each specific anticoagulation regimen (enoxaparin, unfractionated heparin, or bivalirudin) on the primary efficacy end point. The primary safety end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 to 5 bleeding at 30 days.

RESULTS

Between January 10, 2019, and September 18, 2021, a total of 2989 patients were randomized. The primary efficacy end point occurred in 37 patients (2.5%) in both the PPA and placebo groups (hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.57]). The incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 to 5 bleeding did not differ between the PPA and placebo groups (8 [0.5%] vs 11 [0.7%] patients; hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.30 to 1.83]).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine PPA after primary percutaneous coronary intervention was safe but did not reduce 30-day ischemic events.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03664180.

Update on the Pharmacological Actions of Enoxaparin in Nonsurgical Patients

Low-molecular-weight heparins are a class of drugs derived from the enzymatic depolymerization of unfractionated heparin that includes enoxaparin. Several studies have been performed on enoxaparin in recent years, in particular for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism and for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome. Furthermore, the use of enoxaparin has been extended to other clinical situations that require antithrombotic pharmacological prevention, such as hemodialysis and recurrent abortion. In this review, we report the main clinical experiences of using enoxaparin in the prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients.

In vitro evaluation of anticoagulant therapy management when urgent percutaneous coronary intervention is required in rivaroxaban-treated patients

We investigated in vitro the management of intraprocedural anticoagulation in patients requiring immediate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) while using regular direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Twenty-five patients taking 20 mg of rivaroxaban once daily comprised the study group, while five healthy volunteers included the control group. In the study group, a beginning (24 h after the last rivaroxaban dose) examination was performed. Then, the effects of basal and four different anticoagulant doses (50 IU/kg unfractionated heparin (UFH), 100 IU/kg UFH, 0.5 mg/kg enoxaparin, and 1 mg/kg enoxaparin) on coagulation parameters were investigated at the 4th and 12th h following rivaroxaban intake. The effects of four different anticoagulant doses were evaluated in the control group. The anticoagulant activity was assessed mainly by anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) levels. Beginning anti-Xa levels were significantly higher in the study group than in the control group (0.69 ± 0.77 IU/mL vs. 0.20 ± 0.14 IU/mL; p < 0.05). The study group's 4th and 12th-h anti-Xa levels were significantly higher than the beginning level (1.96 ± 1.35 IU/mL vs. 0.69 ± 0.77 IU/mL; p < 0.001 and 0.94 ± 1.21 IU/mL vs. 0.69 ± 0.77 IU/mL; p < 0.05, respectively). Anti-Xa levels increased significantly in the study group with the addition of UFH and enoxaparin doses at the 4th and 12th h than the beginning (p < 0.001 at all doses). The safest anti-Xa level (from 0.94 ± 1.21 to 2.00 ± 1.02 IU/mL) was achieved 12 h after rivaroxaban with 0.5 mg/kg enoxaparin. Anticoagulant activity was sufficient for urgent PCI at the 4th h after rivaroxaban treatment, and additional anticoagulant administration may not be required at this time. Twelve hours after taking rivaroxaban, administering 0.5 mg/kg of enoxaparin may provide adequate and safe anticoagulant activity for immediate PCI. This experimental study result should confirm with clinical trials (NCT05541757).

Clinical Outcomes of Individualized Antiplatelet Therapy Based on Platelet Function Test in Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Platelet function test (PFT) is universally used to assess platelet reactivity to antiplatelet drugs in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, it remains controversial whether individualized antiplatelet therapy guided by PFT can improve the prognosis in patients after PCI. This meta-analysis was conducted to explore the efficacy and safety of individualized antiplatelet therapy guided by PFT in patients after PCI. Studies that compared PFT-guided antiplatelet therapy with standard antiplatelet therapy were researched. The risks of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and major bleeding events were assessed. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were obtained. Finally, a total of 16,835 patients from 22 studies met the criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with standard antiplatelet therapy, individualized antiplatelet therapy guided by PFT significantly decreased the risk of MACCE (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.43-0.77) in patients after PCI. There was no significant difference in major bleeding events (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70-1.05, P = 0.13). This study identified that PFT-guided individualized antiplatelet therapy could reduce the incidence of MACCE without increasing the risk of hemorrhage in patients after PCI.

Role of platelet function testing in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether using platelet function testing (PFT) in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) to personalise antiplatelet therapy including a P2Y12 antagonist offers any clinical benefits to indicate incorporation into routine practice.

METHODS

A search was conducted on five databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted between 1 January 2000 and 17 July 2022, which included an ADP-specific platelet function assays and P2Y12 antagonists as part of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and have reported the efficacy and/or safety outcomes. The reported event frequencies were used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% CI. The χ2 heterogeneity statistical test and sensitivity analysis were used for heterogeneity assessment.

RESULTS

Five RCTs with 7691 patients were included in the analysis. No significant risk reduction was seen in major adverse cardiovascular events (RR=0.95, p=0.42), individual cardiac events (cardiovascular death: RR=0.76, p=0.26; myocardial infarction: RR=0.96, p=0.74; stent thrombosis: RR=0.92, p=0.83; stroke: RR=0.91, p=0.72; target vessel revascularisation: RR=1.06, p=0.47) and overall clinical outcome (RR=0.90, p=0.22). There was also no difference in the rate of bleeding between PFT-guided and standard therapies (major bleeding: RR=0.97, p=0.78, minor bleeding: RR=0.89, p=0.19 and any bleeding: RR=1.04, p=0.33).

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard DAPT with P2Y12 antagonists, using PFT to adjust antiplatelet therapy does not improve clinical outcomes. Therefore, the positions of key guidelines on routine testing in ACS should remain unchanged. In addition, the study highlights the need for well-designed and powered RCTs and standardised testing methodologies to provide reliable findings and definitive conclusions.

The Evolution of Anticoagulation for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A 40-Year Journey

The selection of antithrombotic strategies continue to be of utmost importance during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and have evolved over the past 40 years. Although the backbone of therapy during PCI continues to be a combination of oral antiplatelets and parenteral anticoagulants, a variety of different approaches have been tested over time. In particular, different choices of anticoagulation management have been tested in the stable ischemic heart disease and acute coronary syndrome setting. Evaluation of alternative regimens in the quest to balance ischemic and bleeding risk have undoubtedly improved patient care with PCI. In the current review we highlight the evolution of evidence-based therapeutic options over the past 40 years from the beginning of coronary angioplasty to contemporary PCI. We provide insight into future therapeutic options and provide a contemporary overview of anticoagulation choices for patients who require PCI on the basis of up-to-date evidence balancing ischemic and bleeding risk and according to clinical presentation.

Periprocedural Antithrombotic Treatment in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

ABSTRACT

In recent years, the management of complex lesions in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) constitutes a field of high interest and concern for the interventional cardiology. As more and more studies demonstrate the increased hazard of ischemic events in this group of patients, it is of paramount importance for the physicians to choose the optimal periprocedural (pre-PCI, during-PCI and post-PCI) antithrombotic treatment strategies wisely. Evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of current anticoagulation recommendation, the possible beneficial role of the pretreatment with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor in the subgroup of patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction with complex lesions, and the impact of a more potent P2Y12 inhibitor in individuals with stable coronary artery disease undergoing complex PCI are needed. This will provide and serve as a guide to clinicians to deploy the maximum efficacy of the current choices of antithrombotic therapy, which will lead to an optimal balance between safety and efficacy in this demanding clinical scenario.

Bleeding avoidance strategies in percutaneous coronary intervention

For many years, bleeding has been perceived as an unavoidable consequence of strategies aimed at reducing thrombotic complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the paradigm has now shifted towards bleeding being recognized as a prognostically unfavourable event to the same extent as having a new or recurrent ischaemic or thrombotic complication. As such, in parallel with progress in device and drug development for PCI, there is clinical interest in developing strategies that maximize not only the efficacy but also the safety (for example, by minimizing bleeding) of any antithrombotic treatment or procedural aspect before, during or after PCI. In this Review, we discuss contemporary data and aspects of bleeding avoidance strategies in PCI, including risk stratification, timing of revascularization, pretreatment with antiplatelet agents, selection of vascular access, choice of coronary stents and antithrombotic treatment regimens.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Prognostic value of haemoglobin drop in patients with acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

The prognostic value of in-hospital haemoglobin drop in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive therapy remains insufficiently investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational study included 3838 patients with ACS with admission and in-hospital nadir haemoglobin values available. Haemoglobin drop was defined as a positive difference between admission and nadir haemoglobin values. The primary endpoint was one-year all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

In-hospital haemoglobin drop occurred in 3142 patients (82%). Patients were categorized into 4 groups: no haemoglobin drop (n = 696 patients), <3 g/dl haemoglobin drop (n = 2703 patients), 3 to <5 g/dl haemoglobin drop (n = 344 patients) and ≥5 g/dl haemoglobin drop (n = 95 patients). The primary endpoint occurred in 156 patients: 17 patients (2.5%) in the group with no haemoglobin drop, 81 patients (3.0%) in the group with <3g/dl haemoglobin drop, 37 patients (10.9%) in the group with 3 to <5 g/dl haemoglobin drop and 21 patients (22.2%) in the group with ≥5 g/dl haemoglobin (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.45; p < .001 for one g/dl haemoglobin drop). The association of haemoglobin drop with one-year mortality remained significant after exclusion of patients with in-hospital overt bleeding (adjusted HR = 1.27 [1.11-1.46]; p < .001 for one g/dl haemoglobin drop). The lowest haemoglobin drop associated with mortality was 1.23 g/dl in all patients (HR = 1.03 [1.02-1.04]) and 1.13 g/dl in patients without overt bleeding (HR = 1.03 [1.01-1.04]).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ACS, in-hospital haemoglobin drop was associated with higher risk of one-year mortality even in the absence of overt bleeding.

Bleeding in the Elderly: Risk Factors and Impact on Clinical Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome, a Sub-study of the Randomized ANTARCTIC Trial

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients are at high-risk of bleeding, but are under-represented in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

The aims were to determine the incidence and the predictive factors of bleeding and to assess the impact of bleeding on further ischemic outcomes in elderly patients after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

From the 877 patients aged ≥ 75 years included in the ANTARCTIC randomized trial, data on Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding complications and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, were collected over 1 year.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant bleeding events (BARC types 2, 3, or 5) were observed in 20.6% of patients (n = 181) at 1 year, of which, one third occurred in the first month. Anemia (adjusted hazard ratio [adj.HR] 3.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-11.22; p = 0.009), severe chronic renal failure (adj.HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.12-2.98; p = 0.015), and femoral access (adj.HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.71-3.77; p < 0.001) were independently associated with clinically relevant bleeding events, while age > 85 years (adj.HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.14-4.30; p = 0.018) was independently associated with major bleeding events (BARC types 3 or 5). Patients with a clinically relevant bleeding event had a higher rate of MACE at 1 year (adj.HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.24-3.38; p = 0.005), with a particularly strong effect on stroke (adj.HR 5.55, 95% CI 2.04-15.06; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically relevant bleeding events were observed in one out of five elderly patients undergoing stenting for an ACS and were strongly associated with further stroke occurrence. Rather than the antiplatelet therapy, comorbidities and an age > 85 years predicted bleeding outcomes in this elderly population.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01538446. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov .

Contemporary use of anticoagulation in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a review

Anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary interventions has a rich history that has been shaped by several key clinical trials. The correct choice of anticoagulation during interventions can maximize patient outcomes and ensure a safe procedure. However, in some specific situations, anticoagulation may not be required at all. In this review article, we review the significant clinical trials and current guidelines regarding the use of anticoagulation in the catheterization laboratory and discuss the unique pharmacological aspects of the most commonly used agents, with an emphasis on the specific pharmacokinetic parameters that dictate how these agents are used and monitored. Finally, we discussed the future directions in anticoagulation therapy in coronary artery disease. This review serves as a robust synopsis of the clinical data for practicing clinicians and fellows in training.

Antithrombotic therapy in the elderly and senile age: the consensus opinion of experts of the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatricians and the National Society of Preventive Cardiology

В данном документе обсуждаются особенности АТТ у лиц пожилого и старческого возраста в различных клинических ситуациях.

Anticoagulants Used in Cardiac Catheterization of Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Case Report and Overview

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is one of the most frequently performed invasive therapeutic procedures and plays a key role in the long-term survival of patients with ischemic heart disease. Over 965,000 angioplasties are performed annually in the United States alone. While the technique and equipment have undergone significant revisions and improvement, the medical community will still benefit from more data and guidance on the optimal selection of mandatory peri-operation anticoagulation in specific, high-risk populations. Many of these procedures are performed on high-risk individuals who have an inherently higher risk of hemorrhage or thrombosis. Unfractionated heparin is the most popular choice in the general population, however, its use carries certain limitations. Here we will describe the use of an uncommonly used anticoagulant in a patient being actively treated for leukemia. We will also discuss the unique properties and benefits of the four most frequently used anticoagulants during a cardiac angioplasty. Our team describes the successful use of bivalirudin during an urgent PCI in a 71-year-old female with eight previous stents that was followed by an uncomplicated recovery period. Our experience contributes to a small, but growing, body of evidence that bivalirudin may be a safe choice to use in lieu of unfractionated heparin in patients with underlying oncological disease. Our patient had several comorbidities that significantly increased their risk of bleeding. We will also review the clinical trials that compared the four most commonly used anticoagulants during cardiac catheterization.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Current Evidence and Ongoing Issues Regarding Early and Late Management

A few decades ago, the understanding of the pathophysiological processes involved in the coronary artery thrombus formation has placed anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents at the core of the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Increasingly potent antithrombotic agents have since been evaluated, in various association, timing, or dosage, in numerous randomized controlled trials to interrupt the initial thrombus formation, prevent ischemic complications, and ultimately improve survival. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention, initial parenteral anticoagulation, and dual antiplatelet therapy with potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors have become the hallmark of ACS management revolutionizing its prognosis. Despite these many improvements, much more remains to be done to optimize the onset of action of the various antithrombotic therapies, for further treating and preventing thrombotic events without exposing the patients to an unbearable hemorrhagic risk. The availability of various potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors has opened the door for individualized therapeutic strategies based on the clinical setting as well as the ischemic and bleeding risk of the patients, while the added value of aspirin has been recently challenged. The strategy of dual-pathway inhibition with P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and low-dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant has brought promising results for the early and late management of patients presenting with ACS with and without indication for oral anticoagulation. In this updated review, we aimed at describing the evidence supporting the current gold standard of antithrombotic management of ACS. More importantly, we provide an overview of some of the ongoing issues and promising therapeutic strategies of this ever-evolving topic.

Rationale and design of the RIGHT trial: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of anticoagulation prolongation versus no anticoagulation after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend anticoagulation therapy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, whether anticoagulation should be continued after pPCI has not been well investigated.

METHODS/DESIGN

The RIGHT trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in STEMI patients treated with pPCI evaluating the prolongation of anticoagulation after the procedure. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive either prolonged anticoagulant or matching placebo (no anticoagulation) for at least 48 hours after the procedure. When randomized to anticoagulation prolongation, the patient is assigned to intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) or subcutaneous enoxaparin or intravenous bivalirudin (same drug and same regimen at each center). The primary efficacy endpoint is the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, stent thrombosis (definite) or urgent revascularization (any vessel) at 30 days. The primary safety endpoint is major bleeding (BARC 3-5) at 30 days. Based on a superiority design and assuming a 35% relative risk reduction (from 7% to 4.5%), 2856 patients will be enrolled, accounting for a 5% drop-out rate (α = 0.05 and power = 80%).

CONCLUSION

The RIGHT trial tests the hypothesis that post-procedural anticoagulation is superior to no anticoagulation in reducing ischemic events in STEMI patients undergoing pPCI.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Elderly Patients with Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

The proportion of the elderly in the total population of the world is growing, and the number of elderly patients with coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO) is huge. The elderly patients often have more extensive coronary artery disease, more severe ischemic burden and higher risk of cardiovascular events, as compared to younger patients, and thereby they might greatly benefit from coronary revascularization, even though they may have higher risk of operative complications. Most interventional cardiologists are more likely to be reluctant to operate complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in elderly patients. The latest refinements in dedicated CTO-PCI equipment and techniques have led to high rates of success and low complications rates and have made the CTO-PCI procedures safe and effective among the elderly patients. However, up to now, there is no widely recognized consensus or guideline on treatment strategy of elderly CTO patients, and the prognosis in this population is unknown. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the current evidence and future perspectives on PCI in elderly patients with CTOs.

Reasons for the Failure of Platelet Function Testing to Adjust Antiplatelet Therapy: Pharmacodynamic Insights From the ARCTIC Study

BACKGROUND

In the ARCTIC trial (Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting), treatment adjustment following platelet function testing failed to improve clinical outcomes. However, high-on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) is considered as a predictor of poor ischemic outcome. This prespecified substudy evaluated clinical outcomes according to the residual platelet reactivity status after antiplatelet therapy adjustment.

METHODS

We analyzed the 1213 patients assigned to the monitoring arm of the ARCTIC trial in whom platelet reactivity was evaluated by the VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ test before percutaneous coronary intervention and during the maintenance phase (at 14 days). HPR was defined as platelet reaction unit≥235U. The primary ischemic end point, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization and the safety end point of major bleeding were assessed according to the platelet reactivity status.

RESULTS

Before percutaneous coronary intervention, 35.7% of patients displayed HPR (n=419). During the acute phase, between percutaneous coronary intervention and the 14-day platelet function testing, ischemic (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.74-1.18]; P=0.58) and safety outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.22-7.59]; P=0.78) were similar in HPR and non-HPR patients. During the maintenance phase, the proportion of HPR patients (n=186, 17.4%) decreased by 56%. At 1-year, there was no difference for the ischemic end point (5.9% versus 6.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.40-1.58]; P=0.51) and a nonsignificant higher rate of major bleedings (2.7% versus 1.0%, hazard ratio, 2.83 [95% CI, 0.96-8.41]; P=0.06) in HPR versus non-HPR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of HPR was halved after platelet function testing and treatment adjustment but without significant ischemic benefit at 1 year. HPR seems more as a modifiable risk marker than a risk factor of ischemic outcome.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00827411.

Evaluation of an in vitro coronary stent thrombosis model for preclinical assessment

Stent thrombosis remains an infrequent but significant complication following percutaneous coronary intervention. Preclinical models to rapidly screen and validate therapeutic compounds for efficacy are lacking. Herein, we describe a reproducible, high throughput and cost-effective method to evaluate candidate therapeutics and devices for either treatment or propensity to develop stent thrombosis in an in vitro bench-top model. Increasing degree of stent malapposition (0.00 mm, 0.10 mm, 0.25 mm and 0.50 mm) was associated with increasing thrombosis and luminal area occlusion (4.1 ± 0.5%, 6.3 ± 0.5%, 19.7 ± 4.5%, and 92.6 ± 7.4%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Differences in stent design in the form of bare-metal, drug-eluting, and bioresorbable vascular scaffolds demonstrated differences in stent thrombus burden (14.7 ± 3.8% vs. 20.5 ± 3.1% vs. 86.8 ± 5.3%, p < 0.01, respectively). Finally, thrombus burden was significantly reduced when healthy blood samples were incubated with Heparin, ASA/Ticagrelor (DAPT), and Heparin+DAPT compared to control (DMSO) at 4.1 ± 0.6%, 6.9 ± 1.7%, 4.5 ± 1.2%, and 12.1 ± 1.8%, respectively (p < 0.01). The reported model produces high throughput reproducible thrombosis results across a spectrum of antithrombotic agents, stent design, and degrees of apposition. Importantly, performance recapitulates clinical observations of antiplatelet/antithrombotic regimens as well as device and deployment characteristics. Accordingly, this model may serve as a screening tool for candidate therapies in preclinical evaluation.

Unfractionated Heparin with Sequential Enoxaparin in Patients with Complex Coronary Artery Lesions during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background:

Unfractionated heparin (UFH), despite its limitations, has been used as the primary anticoagulant alternative during the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Some studies indicated that intravenous enoxaparin could be an effective and safe option. Our team used enoxaparin alone at one time according to the guidelines (Class IIA) and found a little catheter thrombosis during PCI. We recommend a new anticoagulation strategy using enoxaparin in combination with UFH. Enoxaparin has a more predictable anticoagulant response with no need of repeatedly monitoring anticoagulation during PCI. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using enoxaparin in combination with UFH in PCI patients with complex coronary artery disease.

Methods:

Between January 2015 and April 2017, 600 PCI patients who received intravenous UFH at an initial dose of 3000 U plus intravenous enoxaparin at a dose of 0.75 mg/kg (observation group) and 600 PCI patients who received UFH at a dose of 100 U/kg (control group) were consecutively included in this retrospective study. The endpoints were postoperative 48-h thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) bleeding and transfusion and 30-day and 1-year major adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

Results:

Baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were similar between groups, except there was less stent implantation per patient in the observation group (2.13 vs. 2.25 in the control group, P = 0.002). TIMI bleeding (3.3% vs. 4.7%) showed no significant difference between the observation group and control group. During the 30-day follow-up, the rate of MACCE was 0.9% in the observation group and 1.5% in the control group. There was no significant difference in the rates of MACCE, death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, cerebrovascular event, and angina within 30 days and 1 year after PCI between groups as well as in the subgroup analysis of transfemoral approach.

Conclusions:

UFH with sequential enoxaparin has similar anticoagulant effect and safety as UFH in PCI of complex coronary artery disease.

Biomarkers of Thrombosis in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Substudy of the ATOLL Trial Comparing Enoxaparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin

BACKGROUND

The aim was to compare the peri-procedural biomarkers of coagulation and platelet activation in patients randomly allocated to intravenous enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the ATOLL randomized trial (NCT00718471).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 129 patients (n = 58 enoxaparin and n = 71 UFH) admitted for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were included in this substudy of the ATOLL trial. Activated partial thromboplastin time ratio, anti-Xa activity, von Willebrand factor antigen, prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 (F1 + 2), thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), tissue factor pathway inhibitor and soluble CD40 ligand were measured at sheath insertion (T1) and at the end of the PCI (T2) and correlated with 1-month clinical outcomes. Target anticoagulation levels at T2 were more readily achieved in patients receiving enoxaparin compared to those receiving UFH (80.3 vs 18.2%, p < 0.0001). Increased levels of F1 + 2 and TAT measured at T2 were associated with the incidence of the composite ischemic endpoint (p = 0.04 and p = 0.03) and all-cause mortality (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.002). Release of F1 + 2 between T1 and T2 also predicted the composite ischemic endpoint (312 ± 513 vs 37 ± 292, p = 0.04) and net clinical outcome (185 ± 405 vs 3.2 ± 278, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

During primary PCI, enoxaparin achieved therapeutic levels more frequently than UFH. Higher level of thrombin generation measured at the end of the PCI procedure was associated with more frequent ischemic events.

Effect of patient’s age on the profitability of inpatient cardiac catheterization: a contribution margin analysis of frequently performed procedures over a 5-year period

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Electronic supplementary material

Parenteral anticoagulants in heart disease: Current status and perspectives (Section II)

Anticoagulants are a mainstay of cardiovascular therapy, and parenteral anticoagulants have widespread use in cardiology, especially in acute situations. Parenteral anticoagulants include unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins, the synthetic pentasaccharides fondaparinux, idraparinux and idrabiotaparinux, and parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors. The several shortcomings of unfractionated heparin and of low-molecular-weight heparins have prompted the development of the other newer agents. Here we review the mechanisms of action, pharmacological properties and side effects of parenteral anticoagulants used in the management of coronary heart disease treated with or without percutaneous coronary interventions, cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, and prosthetic heart valves and valve repair. Using an evidence-based approach, we describe the results of completed clinical trials, highlight ongoing research with currently available agents, and recommend therapeutic options for specific heart diseases.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A North American Perspective-2016 Update

The optimal antithrombotic treatment regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation is an emerging clinical problem. Currently, there is limited evidenced-based data on the optimal antithrombotic treatment regimen, including antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies, for these high-risk patients with practice guidelines, thus, providing limited recommendations. Over the past years, expert consensus documents have provided guidance to clinicians on how to manage patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Given the recent advancements in the field, the current document provides an updated opinion of selected North American experts from the United States and Canada on the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In particular, this document provides the current views on (1) embolic/stroke risk, (2) ischemic/thrombotic cardiac risk, and (3) bleeding risk, which are pivotal for discerning the choice of antithrombotic therapy. In addition, we describe the recent advances in pharmacology, stent designs, and clinical trials relevant to the field. Ultimately, we provide expert consensus-derived recommendations, using a pragmatic approach, on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Impact of Access Site on Bleeding and Ischemic Events in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated With Prasugrel: The ACCOAST Access Substudy

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed whether the choice of vascular access site influenced outcomes among non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients enrolled in the ACCOAST (A Comparison of prasugrel at the time of percutaneous Coronary intervention Or as pre-treatment At the time of diagnosis in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction NCT01015287).

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral access (TFA) has been associated with the risk of bleeding and increased mortality that is elevated compared to transradial access (TRA) in acute coronary syndromes, although less consistently in NSTE acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) than in STE-ACS.

METHODS

The ACCOAST study evaluated a prasugrel loading dose of 60 mg given at the start of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus a split loading dose of 30 mg given at the time of diagnosis of NSTE-ACS (prior to coronary angiography), followed by 30 mg given at the start of PCI. In the study, choice of access site was at the investigator's discretion. We compared ischemic and bleeding outcomes with TFA versus those with TRA, using propensity score correction.

RESULTS

Of 4,033 patients, 1,711 (42%) underwent TRA. Use of TRA varied widely by country. TFA was not associated with significant increases in noncoronary bypass graft (CABG)-related thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) (hazard ratio [HR] for TFA = 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 3.62; p = 0.42), nor in GUSTO (Global Utilization Of Streptokinase and Tpa for Occluded arteries) or STEEPLE (Safety and Efficacy of Enoxaparin in PCI) major bleeding after propensity score correction. TFA, however, increased combined non-CABG TIMI major or minor bleeding (HR for TFA = 2.34; 95% CI: 1.17 to 4.69; p = 0.017). Primary ischemic outcomes did not differ by access site, albeit individual endpoint analysis suggested an association between TFA with an increase in urgent revascularizations and reduced risk of procedure-related stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ACCOAST trial, TFA did not significantly increase TIMI major bleeding, although TRA was associated with a reduction in TIMI major or minor bleeding. Further study is needed to determine whether wider application of radial approach to NSTE-ACS patients at high risk for bleeding improves overall outcomes. (A Comparison of Prasugrel at PCI or Time of Diagnosis of Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [ACCOAST]; NCT01015287).

Individualized dual antiplatelet therapy based on platelet function testing in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

High on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) represents a strong risk factor for thrombotic events after PCI. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of individualizing intensified dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in PCI-treated patients with HPR based on platelet function testing (PFT).

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for randomized control trials that reported the clinical outcomes of using an intensified antiplatelet protocol with P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor comparing with standard maintenance dose of clopidogrel on the basis of platelet function testing. Clinical endpoints were assessed.

Results

From 2005 to 2016, thirteen clinical studies comprising 7290 patients were included for analysis. Compared with standard antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, the intensified protocol based on platelet function testing was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (RR:0.55, 95% CI: 0.36–0.84, p = 0.005), cardiovascular death (RR:0.60, 95% CI: 0.38–0.96, p = 0.03), stent thrombosis (RR:0.58, 95% CI: 0.36–0.93, p = 0.02) and target vessel revascularization (RR:0.33, 95% CI: 0.14–0.76, p = 0.009). No significant difference was found in the rate of bleeding events between intensified and standard protocol.

Conclusions

Compared with standard clopidogrel therapy, individualized intensified antiplatelet therapy on the basis of platelet reactivity testing reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events in patient undergoing PCI, without increasing the risk of bleeding.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0582-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Association between arterial access site and anticoagulation strategy on major bleeding and mortality: A historical cohort analysis in the Veteran population

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown reduction in major bleeding with trans-radial intervention (TRI) compared with trans-femoral intervention (TFI), and with use of bivalirudin compared with heparin+glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI). We compared major bleeding, mortality and the interaction between arterial access site and the anticoagulant used for PCI in Veterans.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 1192 consecutive patients who underwent PCI at a VA hospital between 2006 and 2012 was divided into TFI-heparin (n=192), TFI-bivalirudin (n=272), TRI-heparin (n=274) and TRI-bivalirudin (n=454) groups. Primary outcomes were in-hospital major bleeding, in-hospital and 1-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital MI, in-hospital and 1-year MACE and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE - composite of major bleeding+MACE).

RESULTS

Femoral access was associated with a significantly increased risk of major bleeding compared with radial access (OR 11.87, p<0.001). Correspondingly, radial access was protective against major bleeding compared with femoral access (OR 0.128, p<0.01), but did not lower mortality or MACE by itself. Severe anemia was the only predictor of in-hospital all-cause mortality (OR=27.62, p<0.008). Presence of anemia and age>70 predicted 1-year mortality, whereas major bleeding and anemia predicted 1-year MACE. An interaction was noted between anticoagulant and access site, such that heparin showed significantly greater major bleeding in the femoral group compared with the radial group. Bivalirudin resulted in similar risk of bleeding, regardless of access site. There was a synergistic interaction between radial access and heparin (HR 0.38, p<0.05), but not radial access and bivalirudin, on reduction in 1-year NACE.

CONCLUSION

Radial access for PCI is associated with reduction in major bleeding, but does not have an effect on in-patient or 1-year MACE and mortality. Major bleeding is associated with poor short and intermediate term outcomes. In addition, anemia is strongly associated with increased in-patient and 1-year mortality. There is a differential effect of heparin but not bivalirudin on major bleeding, depending on the access site. There is no synergism between radial access and bivalirudin in lowering the composite outcome of MACE and major bleeding at 1year.

Safety and efficacy outcomes of 3rd generation DES in an all-comer population of patients undergoing PCI: 12-month and 24-month results of the e-Biomatrix French registry

Objectives

The French Ebiomatrix registry aimed to confirm the results of the Leaders trial in an all‐comer population in France.

Background

The Leaders trial showed the Biolimus‐eluting‐sent (BES) to be equivalent to the Cypher stent in terms of safety and efficacy at 1 year and superior regarding stent thrombosis after 1 year.

Methods

BES recipients were enrolled in 42 French centers with up to 24‐month clinical follow up.

Results

2365 patients were included. Mean age: 65.7 ±11.2 years, 76.1% males, 31.8% had diabetes, 36.5% ACS (28.7% non‐ST‐elevation MI and 7.8% with ST‐elevation MI). 1.7 ± 1.0 stents/patient were implanted and procedural success was 99.5%. 12‐month follow‐up was completed in 94.3% patients and 24 months in 91.4%. MACCE rates at 12 and 24 months were 5.8% and 9% (all cause‐death 1.5% and 2.2%; stent thrombosis definite/probable 0.4% and 0.6%), respectively. MACCE were not significantly higher in diabetic patients compared with non‐diabetics but cardiac death was higher (1.6% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.01 at 1 year and 1.9% vs. 0.6, P = 0.005 at 2 years) as was stent thrombosis (0.9% vs. 0.2%, P = 0.009 and 1.2 vs. 0.3% P = 0.008). Compared with non‐ACS patients, MACCE was significantly higher in the ACS subgroup (7.5% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.001 at 1 year and 10.3% vs.8.1%, P = 0.07 at 2 years).

Conclusion

In this large real‐world registry, the BES with biodegradable polymer showed excellent acute and mid‐term outcomes with a 5.8% and 9% rate of MACCE at one and 2 years and a very low rate of stent thrombosis between 1 and 2 years (0.2%), thus demonstrating the replicability of the LEADERS trial in a registry population. © 2017 The Authors Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Consensus Document of the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO), Italian Society of Cardiology (SIC), Italian Association of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE) and Italian Society of Cardiac Surgery (SICCH): clinical approach to pharmacologic pre-treatment for patients undergoing myocardial revascularization procedures

The wide availability of effective drugs in reducing cardiovascular events together with the use of myocardial revascularization has greatly improved the prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease. The combination of antithrombotic drugs to be administered before the knowledge of the coronary anatomy and before the consequent therapeutic strategies, can allow to anticipate optimal treatment, but can also expose the patients at risk of bleeding that, especially in acute coronary syndromes, can significantly weigh on their prognosis, even more than the expected theoretical benefit. In non ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes patients in particular, we propose a 'selective pre-treatment' with P2Y12 inhibitors, based on the ischaemic risk, on the bleeding risk and on the time scheduled for the execution of coronary angiography. Much of the problems concerning this issue would be resolved by an early access to coronary angiography, particularly for patients at higher ischaemic and bleeding risk.

The Rationale for and Clinical Pharmacology of Prasugrel 5 mg

Prasugrel is a third-generation thienopyridine platelet P2Y₁₂ adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor antagonist administered with aspirin for the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with planned percutaneous coronary intervention. Prasugrel is administered periprocedurally at an oral loading dose of 60 mg followed by daily maintenance doses (MDs) of 10 mg for most patients and 5 mg for patients weighing <60 kg or aged ≥75 years. Data from a prasugrel phase III study, TRITON-TIMI 38, suggested that a lower MD might be more suitable for patients weighing <60 kg or aged ≥75 years; subsequent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have indicated that prasugrel 5 mg reduced platelet reactivity in these populations to an extent similar to that of prasugrel 10 mg in heavier or younger patients. Clinical experience with prasugrel 5 mg is limited, and additional studies are needed to verify the clinical efficacy and safety of this dose in these challenging populations.

Validation of Bleeding Classifications in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Perioperative bleeding is a determinant of poor outcome in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), but there is a lack of adequate stratification of its severity. The ability of the European registry of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (E-CABG), Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding (UDPB), Study of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO), Clopidogrel and Aspirin Optimal Dose Usage to Reduce Recurrent Events-Seventh Organization to Assess Strategies in Ischemic Syndromes (CURRENT-OASIS 7), Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q Wave Coronary Events (ESSENCE), and SafeTy and Efficacy of Enoxaparin in Percutaneous coronary intervention patients, an internationaL randomized Evaluation (STEEPLE) bleeding classifications to predict early mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI) stage 3, and deep sternal wound infection/mediastinitis was investigated in 3,730 patients from the prospective, multicentre E-CABG registry. Increasing grades of the E-CABG, UDPB, PLATO, and CURRENT-OASIS 7 classifications were associated with increasing risks of early mortality, had similar receiver-operating characteristic area under the curves (>0.7), and were predictive also when adjusted for EuroSCORE II. The E-CABG and UDPB classifications had satisfactory area under the curves (>0.6) in predicting stroke, AKI stage 3, and deep sternal wound infection/mediastinitis even when adjusted for EuroSCORE II. The PLATO and CURRENT-OASIS 7 classifications had similar predictive ability for stroke and AKI stage 3 as confirmed by multivariate analysis adjusted for EuroSCORE II but showed inferior ability in predicting severe wound infection compared to the E-CABG and UDPB classifications. The STEEPLE and ESSENCE classifications had a poor ability of predicting all these adverse events. Decision curve analysis showed a benefit of the E-CABG bleeding classification over the other classifications in predicting all adverse events. In conclusion, the E-CABG, UDPB, PLATO, and CURRENT-OASIS 7 bleeding classifications have a satisfactory ability in predicting adverse events after CABG. Decision curve analysis showed that the E-CABG bleeding classification had the best predictive performance.

Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Interventions Across the Entire Spectrum of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative appraisal of the effects on clinical outcomes of radial access for coronary interventions in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials investigating radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary interventions have provided conflicting evidence. No comprehensive quantitative appraisal of the risks and benefits of each approach is available across the whole spectrum of patients with stable or unstable CAD.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized trials comparing radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a fixed-effects or a random-effects model, as appropriate. Pre-specified subgroup analyses according to clinical presentation, in terms of stable CAD, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies enrolling 22,843 participants were included. Compared with femoral access, radial access was associated with a significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.87; p = 0.001, number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] = 160), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.94; p = 0.002; NNTB = 99), major bleeding (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.65; p < 0.001; NNTB = 103), and major vascular complications (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.35; p < 0.001; NNTB = 117). The rates of myocardial infarction or stroke were similar in the 2 groups. Effects of radial access were consistent across the whole spectrum of patients with CAD for all appraised endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with femoral access, radial access reduces mortality and MACE and improves safety, with reductions in major bleeding and vascular complications across the whole spectrum of patients with CAD.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Numerous agents are available for anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). These agents have been evaluated in a variety of clinical settings, including elective, urgent, and emergent PCI. Although unfractionated heparin remains a frequent choice, accumulating data support the use of newer agents to mitigate bleeding risk, especially in the setting of femoral access and concomitant use of glycoprotein IIb/IIa receptor inhibition. With several antithrombotic agents available, an assessment must be made regarding the ischemic and bleeding risks. This article summarizes existing data examining the benefits and limitations of the various anticoagulants and guidelines for their use.

Clinical Outcome of First- vs Second-Generation DES According to DAPT Duration: Results of ARCTIC-Generation

There is an apparent benefit with extension of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES). Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy vs a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation, and of Treatment Interruption vs Continuation One Year After Stenting (ARCTIC)-Generation assessed whether there is a difference of outcome between first- vs second-generation DES and if there is an interaction with DAPT duration in the ARCTIC-Interruption study. ARCTIC-Interruption randomly allocated 1259 patients 1 year after stent implantation to a strategy of interruption of DAPT (n = 624), in which aspirin antiplatelet treatment only was maintained, or DAPT continuation (n = 635) for 6 to 18 additional months. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization. A total of 520 and 722 patients received a first- and a second-generation DES, respectively. After a median follow-up of 17 months (interquartile range, 15-18 months) after randomization, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 (6.2%) and 19 (2.6%) patients with first- and second-generation DES, respectively (hazard ratio: 2.31, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-4.07, P = 0.004). This was observed irrespective of the strategy of interruption or continuation of DAPT and timing of study recruitment. Major bleeding events occurred in 4 (0.8%) and 3 patients (0.4%) with first- and second-generation DES, respectively (hazard ratio: 1.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.40-8.02, P = 0.44). Results did not change after multiple adjustments for potential confounding variables. ARCTIC-Generation showed worse clinical outcome with first- vs second-generation DES, a difference that appeared to persist even with prolonged DAPT.