Strategies to minimize bleeding complications of percutaneous coronary intervention

Triple therapy for atrial fibrillation and percutaneous coronary intervention: a contemporary review

Chronic oral anticoagulant therapy is recommended (class I) in patients with mechanical heart valves and in patients with atrial fibrillation with a CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category) score ≥1. When these patients undergo percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting, treatment with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor also becomes indicated. Before 2014, guidelines recommended the use of triple therapy (vitamin K antagonists, aspirin, and clopidogrel) for these patients. However, major bleeding is increasingly recognized as the Achilles' heel of the triple therapy regimen. Lately, various studies have investigated this topic, including a prospective randomized trial, and the evidence for adding aspirin to the regimen of vitamin K antagonists and clopidogrel seems to be weakened. In this group of patients, the challenge is finding the optimal equilibrium to prevent thromboembolic events, such as stent thrombosis and thromboembolic stroke, without increasing bleeding risk.

Bivalirudin in acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention: should we use it?

Major bleeding remains a major risk factor for percutaneous coronary intervention of acute coronary syndromes and is associated with higher morbidity, mortality, prolonged hospital stay and costs. With the recognition that bleeding is an important factor in patient outcomes, the prevention of bleeding has become as important a goal as the prevention of ischaemia. The direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin has been shown to reduce ischaemia and importantly, is associated with less bleeding. In this article we review the evidence base that supports the use of bivalirudin across all spectrums of coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention. An algorithm for the use of bivalirudin in high risk subgroups and coronary syndromes is suggested.

Managing Risk of Complications at Femoral Vascular Access Sites in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome or non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction requires the use of potent oral and intravenous anti-platelet and antithrombin medications. Although these potent antithrombotic agents and regimens may increase the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention, they are also generally associated with an increased risk of vascular access complications such as hematoma, retroperitoneal hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, arterial occlusion, and arteriovenous fistula, which in turn are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and costs. Risk factors predisposing patients to these complications are both modifiable (procedure technique, medications, hemostasis method) and nonmodifiable (sex, age, body mass index, blood pressure, renal function). Patients’ risks can be reduced by nurses who are knowledgeable about these risk factors and identify complications before they become problematic.

Evaluating the Performance of the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) bleeding score in a contemporary Spanish cohort of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) model provides a risk score that predicts the likelihood of major bleeding in patients hospitalized for non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. The aim of the present work was to evaluate the performance of this model in a contemporary cohort of patients hospitalized for non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction in Spain.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study subjects were 782 consecutive patients admitted to our center between February 2004 and June 2009 with non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. For each patient, we calculated the CRUSADE risk score and evaluated its discrimination and calibration by the C statistic and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, respectively. The performance of the CRUSADE risk score was evaluated for the patient population as a whole and for groups of patients treated with or without >or=2 antithrombotic medications and who underwent cardiac catheterization or not. The median CRUSADE score was 30 points (range, 18 to 45). A total of 657 patients (84%) were treated with >or=2 antithrombotic, of whom 609 (92.7%) underwent cardiac catheterization. The overall incidence of major bleeding was 9.5%. This incidence increased with the risk category: very low, 1.5%; low, 4.3%; moderate, 7.8%; high, 11.8%; and very high, 28.9% (P<0.001). For the patients as a whole, for the groups treated with or without >or=2 antithrombotics, and for the subgroup treated with >or=2 antithrombotics who did or did not undergo cardiac catheterization, the CRUSADE score showed adequate calibration and excellent discriminatory capacity (Hosmer-Lemeshow P>0.3 and C values of 0.82, 0.80, 0.70, and 0.80, respectively). However, it showed little capacity to discriminate bleeding risk in patients treated with >or=2 antithrombotics who did not undergo cardiac catheterization (C=0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

The CRUSADE risk score was generally validated and found to be useful in a Spanish cohort of patients treated with or without >or=2 antithrombotics and in those treated with or without >or=2 antithrombotics who underwent cardiac catheterization. More studies are needed to clarify the validity of the CRUSADE score in the subgroup treated with >or=2 antithrombotics who do not undergo cardiac catheterization.

Hematomas of at least 5 cm and outcomes in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the SafeTy and Efficacy of Enoxaparin in PCI patients, an internationaL randomized Evaluation (STEEPLE) trial

BACKGROUND

Major bleeding significantly impacts outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). No uniform definitions exist for major and minor bleeding. Hematomas > or =5 cm at the femoral puncture site are considered major bleeding events in some trials and minor in others. Limited information is available on the incidence and clinical relevance of hematomas > or =5 cm in PCI patients.

METHODS

Data from the STEEPLE trial in patients undergoing elective PCI were used to assess the impact of hematomas > or =5 cm on ischemic outcomes (mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent target vessel revascularization) up to day 30 and all-cause 1-year mortality. Hematoma data were available for 3,342 of 3,528 patients in STEEPLE. Patients with (n = 103) and without (n = 3,239) hematomas > or =5 cm were evenly distributed across treatment groups.

RESULTS

No differences were observed in 30-day ischemic outcomes between patients with and without hematomas (5.8% vs 5.9%, respectively; P = .96). No transfusions were observed in patients with hematomas as compared with patients without hematomas (0% and 0.4%, respectively; P = .52). A greater reduction in hemoglobin was observed (pre- vs post-PCI) in patients with hematomas as compared with patients without hematomas (-0.84 vs -0.35 g/L, P < or = .001). No significant difference in all-cause 1-year mortality was observed between patients with and without hematomas (0.0% vs 1.7%, P = .98).

CONCLUSIONS

After PCI, hematomas > or =5 cm had no effect on 30-day ischemic events or 1-year mortality. Although there is no agreed classification for large hematomas, the lack of a relationship between hematomas > or =5 cm and clinical outcome after PCI justifies the classification of these hematomas as minor bleeds in STEEPLE.