Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Prior randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the optimal antithrombotic therapies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been powered to evaluate ischemic outcomes. We compared double therapy with oral anticoagulation (OAC) and a P2Y12 inhibitor to triple therapy with an OAC + dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with AF requiring PCI. METHODS:Using PRISMA guidelines, we searched for RCTs including patients with AF as an indication for OAC and undergoing PCI or medical management of acute coronary syndrome. The results were pooled using fixed-effects and random-effects models to estimate the overall effect of double therapy versus triple therapy on ischemic and bleeding outcomes. RESULTS:= 64%), as were intracranial hemorrhages (19/5470 vs. 30/4710; fixed effect model OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96). CONCLUSIONS:Double therapy in patients with AF requiring OAC following PCI or Acute coronary syndrome has a significantly better safety profile than triple therapy but may be associated with a modest increased risk of stent thrombosis.

AIMS:We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of different anti-platelet regimens after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug eluting stent (DES) implantation using a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS:RCTs comparing shorter duration (≤6 months) of dual antiplatelet therapy (S-DAPT) with either aspirin (ASA) or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy against longer duration (≥12 months) DAPT (L-DAPT) after PCI were searched in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases. End-points of interest were all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), major bleeding and major or minor bleeding. Network meta-analyses were performed using frequentist approach. RESULTS:Eighteen RCTs with total of 57,942 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This included 14 RCTs (N = 28,853) of S-DAPT with ASA monotherapy and 4 RCTs (N = 29,089) with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy. Compared with L-DAPT, the odds of MI were higher with S-DAPT with ASA monotherapy [OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.48], but not with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy [0.98; 0.85-1.14]. Both S-DAPT regimens lowered rates of major bleeding when compared with L-DAPT; ASA monotherapy [0.70; 0.49-1.00] and P2Y12 monotherapy [0.67; 0.45-0.98]. There were no differences in risks of all-cause or CV death between either regimen of S-DAPT and L-DAPT. However, in the acute coronary syndrome subgroup, ASA monotherapy was associated with increased risk of ST [1.55; 1.021-2.36] but P2Y12 monotherapy was not [0.93; 0.58-1.48]. CONCLUSION:Amongst patients undergoing DES implantation, S-DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduces bleeding without increased risk of MI or ST compared with L-DAPT. Prospective trials are needed to evaluate if S-DAPT with P2Y12 monotherapy is superior to S-DAPT with ASA monotherapy for ischemic protection.

Standard evaluation and management of the patient with suspected or proven cardiovascular complications of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome related-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is challenging. Routine history, physical examination, laboratory testing, electrocardiography, and plain x-ray imaging may often suffice for such patients, but given overlap between COVID-19 and typical cardiovascular diagnoses such as heart failure and acute myocardial infarction, need frequently arises for advanced imaging techniques to assist in differential diagnosis and management. This document provides guidance in several common scenarios among patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection and possible cardiovascular involvement, including chest discomfort with electrocardiographic changes, acute hemodynamic instability, newly recognized left ventricular dysfunction, as well as imaging during the subacute/chronic phase of COVID-19. For each, the authors consider the role of biomarker testing to guide imaging decision-making, provide differential diagnostic considerations, and offer general suggestions regarding application of various advanced imaging techniques.

In this review, we report a contemporary appraisal of the available evidence focusing on adjunctive antithrombotic therapy and technical aspects of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Only few randomized trials have been conducted to evaluate the optimal arterial access choice, antithrombotic therapy, stent type, or the role of aspiration thrombectomy in this population. Observational data suggest that a transradial approach should be preferred for experienced operators, although knowledge and experience of transfemoral access is required to place any mechanical support device. In the absence of high-quality evidence to guide choice of the adjunctive antithrombotic drugs to support PCI in patients with AMICS, knowledge of the altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in shock is required to inform decisions. Drug-eluting stents should be favored over bare-metal stents, and routine thrombectomy is not encouraged. Owing to the challenges inherent to the conduct of randomized trials in this acutely ill patient population, concerted multicenter, and international efforts are paramount to orchestrate the development of high-quality evidence to guide clinical practice.

BACKGROUND:Vascular and bleeding complications were commonly reported in transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical trials. Little is known about complication rates in contemporary US clinical practice or clinical outcomes associated with these complications. METHODS:values for trends were calculated for rates over time, and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between vascular/bleeding complications and in-hospital clinical outcomes. RESULTS:value for trend test <0.0001); however, there was significant variation in rates across hospital sites (adjusted median rate, 11.4%; IQR, 8.9-14.5). Vascular complications were independently associated with 30-day death (adjusted HR, 2.23 [95% CI, 1.80-2.77]) and death (adjusted HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.05-1.30]) and rehospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.07-1.22]) at 1 year. Bleeding events were also associated with 30-day death (adjusted HR, 3.71 [95% CI, 2.94-4.69]), and with death (adjusted HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.23-1.56]) and hospital readmission (adjusted HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.11-1.27]) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:In patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the US, vascular complications and in-hospital bleeding events were common, but rates have declined over time with significant variation in complication rates across hospital sites. Vascular and bleeding complications are both associated with worse short- and long-term clinical outcomes including all-cause mortality. Further innovation to reduce sheath sizes and optimize antithrombotic therapy is necessary to reduce the incidence of these detrimental complications.