Choices in antithrombotic management for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: questions (and answers) in chronological sequence

Definitions and Standardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations

The Bifurcation Academic Research Consortium (Bif-ARC) project originated from the need to overcome the paucity of standardization and comparability between studies involving bifurcation coronary lesions. This document is the result of a collaborative effort between academic research organizations and the most renowned interventional cardiology societies focused on bifurcation lesions in Europe, the United States, and Asia. This consensus provides standardized definitions for bifurcation lesions; the criteria to judge the side branch relevance; the procedural, mechanistic, and clinical endpoints for every type of bifurcation study; and the follow-up methods. Considering the complexity of bifurcation lesions and their evaluation, detailed instructions and technical aspects for site and core laboratory analysis of bifurcation lesions are also reported. The recommendations included within this consensus will facilitate pooled analyses and the effective comparison of data in the future, improving the clinical relevance of trials in bifurcation lesions, and the quality of care in this subset of patients.

Definitions and Standardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations

The Bifurcation Academic Research Consortium (Bif-ARC) project originated from the need to overcome the paucity of standardization and comparability between studies involving bifurcation coronary lesions. This document is the result of a collaborative effort between academic research organizations and the most renowned interventional cardiology societies focused on bifurcation lesions in Europe, the United States, and Asia. This consensus provides standardized definitions for bifurcation lesions; the criteria to judge the side branch relevance; the procedural, mechanistic, and clinical endpoints for every type of bifurcation study; and the follow-up methods. Considering the complexity of bifurcation lesions and their evaluation, detailed instructions and technical aspects for site and core laboratory analysis of bifurcation lesions are also reported. The recommendations included within this consensus will facilitate pooled analyses and the effective comparison of data in the future, improving the clinical relevance of trials in bifurcation lesions, and the quality of care in this subset of patients.

Angiography-derived physiology guidance vs usual care in an All-comers PCI population treated with the healing-targeted supreme stent and Ticagrelor monotherapy: PIONEER IV trial design

BACKGROUND

Current ESC guidelines recommend the use of intra-coronary pressure guidewires for functional assessment of intermediate-grade coronary stenoses. Angiography-derived quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel method of assessing these stenoses, and guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS/DESIGN

The PIONEER IV trial is a prospective, all-comers, multi-center trial, which will randomize 2,540 patients in a 1:1 ratio to PCI guided by angiography-derived physiology or usual care, with unrestricted use in both arms of the Healing-Targeted Supreme sirolimus-eluting stent (HT Supreme). The stent's fast, biologically healthy, and robust endothelial coverage allows for short dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT); hence the antiplatelet regimen of choice is 1-month DAPT, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy. In the angiography-derived physiology guided arm, lesions will be functionally assessed using on-line QFR, with stenting indicated in lesions with a QFR ≤0.80. Post-stenting, QFR will be repeated in the stented vessel(s), with post-dilatation or additional stenting recommended if the QFR<0.91 distal to the stent, or if the delta QFR (across the stent) is >0.05. Usual care PCI is performed according to standard clinical practice. The primary endpoint is a non-inferiority comparison of the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) of all-cause death, any stroke, any myocardial infarction, or any clinically, and physiologically driven revascularization with a non-inferiority risk-difference margin of 3.2%, at 1-year post-procedure. Clinical follow-up will be up to 3 years.

SUMMARY

The PIONEER IV trial aims to demonstrate non-inferiority of QFR-guided PCI to usual care PCI with respect to POCE at 1-year in patients treated with HT Supreme stents and ticagrelor monotherapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: NCT04923191 CLASSIFICATIONS: Interventional Cardiology.

CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) update 2022

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) has significantly contributed to reducing the mortality of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) even in cardiogenic shock and is now the standard of care in most of Japanese institutions. The Task Force on Primary PCI of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Interventional and Therapeutics (CVIT) society proposed an expert consensus document for the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) focusing on procedural aspects of primary PCI in 2018. Updated guidelines for the management of AMI were published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in 2017 and 2020. Major changes in the guidelines for STEMI patients included: (1) radial access and drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare-metal stents (BMS) were recommended as a Class I indication, (2) complete revascularization before hospital discharge (either immediate or staged) is now considered as Class IIa recommendation. In 2020, updated guidelines for Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) patients, the followings were changed: (1) an early invasive strategy within 24 h is recommended in patients with NSTEMI as a Class I indication, (2) complete revascularization in NSTEMI patients without cardiogenic shock is considered as Class IIa recommendation, and (3) in patients with atrial fibrillation following a short period of triple antithrombotic therapy, dual antithrombotic therapy (e.g., DOAC and single oral antiplatelet agent preferably clopidogrel) is recommended, with discontinuation of the antiplatelet agent after 6 to 12 months. Furthermore, an aspirin-free strategy after PCI has been investigated in several trials those have started to show the safety and efficacy. The Task Force on Primary PCI of the CVIT group has now proposed the updated expert consensus document for the management of AMI focusing on procedural aspects of primary PCI in 2022 version.

Antithrombotic Management for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Comprehensive protection of a patient with atrial fibrillation (AF) should not only reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism, but also reduce the risk coronary events and ensure high adherence to treatment. In accordance with consensus document issued by the European Heart Rhythm Association, European Society of Cardiology, European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, as well as with other recent Russian Society of Cardiology Guidelines, the management of antithrombotic therapy of patients with AF undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) requires that multiple and interconnected issues. The review article addresses questions about duration of initial triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT), selection of P2Y12 inhibitor, choice of oral anticoagulant to be combined with antiplatelet therapy, intensity of oral anticoagulation throughout combination therapy, and choice of oral anticoagulant for indefinite therapy. In general, it is recommended to refuse the routine use of TAT for most patients. Accordingly, for patients who need both anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy, it is strongly recommended that the default strategy after recent PCI is a double antithrombotic therapy consisting of an anticoagulant and one antiplatelet, preferably from the group of P2Y12 inhibitors. When conducting combined antithrombotic therapy, preference should be given to clopidogrel compared to other, more powerful P2Y12 inhibitors and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) instead of vitamin K antagonists. The primary choice of DOAC in patients with AF who have undergone PCI should be carried out taking into account such factors as individual risk of stroke and bleeding, adherence to treatment, concomitant diseases, pharmacological characteristics and evidence base of a specific DOAC, taking other medications, etc. The pharmacokinetic features of rivaroxaban, which create the possibility of its single administration, the evidence base for reducing coronary risks in various variants of the course of coronary heart disease, determines the special positions of the drug for the comprehensive protection of patients with AF after PCI.

Safety and efficacy of double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation with or without acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a collaborative meta-analysis of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant-based randomized clinical trials

Aims

Safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may differ based on clinical presentation. We sought to compare double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (DAT vs. TAT) in AF patients with or without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI.

Methods and results

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PubMed to search for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-based randomized clinical trials. Data on subgroups of ACS or elective PCI were obtained by published reports or trial investigators. A total of 10 193 patients from four NOAC trials were analysed, of whom 5675 presenting with ACS (DAT = 3063 vs. TAT = 2612) and 4518 with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD; DAT = 2421 vs. TAT = 2097). The primary safety endpoint of ISTH major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding was reduced with DAT compared with TAT in both ACS (12.2% vs. 19.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56–0.71; P < 0.0001; I² = 0%) and SCAD (14.6% vs. 22.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55–0.85; P = 0.0008; I² = 66%), without interaction (P-int = 0.54). Findings were consistent for secondary bleeding endpoints, including intra-cranial haemorrhage. In both subgroups, there was no difference between DAT and TAT for all-cause death, major adverse cardiovascular events, or stroke. Myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were numerically higher with DAT vs. TAT consistently in ACS and SCAD (P-int = 0.60 and 0.86, respectively). Findings were confirmed by multiple sensitivity analyses, including a separate analysis on dabigatran regimens and a restriction to PCI population.

Conclusions

DAT, compared with TAT, is associated with lower bleeding risks, including intra-cranial haemorrhage, and a small non-significant excess of cardiac ischaemic events in both patients with or without ACS.