Faculty Bibliography

The clinical course of patients with a previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) presenting with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is not well defined. We aimed to compare the management and outcomes of patients with and without previous CABG who present with an NSTEMI. Patients hospitalized with an NSTEMI between 2002 and 2018 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. The baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients with and without a previous CABG were compared. The outcomes included the rates of invasive procedures (defined as coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or CABG), and its individual components, and in-hospital mortality. A total of 1,445,545 cases of NSTEMI were found, of which 133,691 (9.3%) had a previous CABG. Patients with a previous CABG were older (72.4 vs 68.6 years, p <0.001), more likely men (68.8% vs 56.9%, p <0.001), and of White race (79.7% vs 74.8%, p <0.001). The previous CABG cohort had lower rates of invasive procedures (50.4% vs 65.6%, p <0.001), PCI (23.7% vs 32.0%, p <0.001), or CABG (1.2% vs 10.6%; p <0.001) in the unmatched analysis. The results were consistent in the propensity score-matched analysis with the previous CABG group less likely to receive any invasive procedures (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47 to 0.49), including coronary angiography (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.55), PCI (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.67), or repeat CABG (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.12). Moreover, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in the previous CABG group (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.21). In the subset of patients who were revascularized in both groups, this excess mortality was no longer observed (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03). In conclusion, a previous CABG in patients who present with NSTEMI is associated with lower rates of invasive procedures and revascularization and higher in-hospital mortality than patients without a previous CABG.

BACKGROUND:Same day discharge (SDD) following chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has received limited study. METHODS:We evaluated the clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics of patients discharged the same day versus those kept for overnight observation in the Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention (PROGRESS-CTO, NCT02061436). RESULTS:Of the 7181 patients who underwent CTO PCI, 943 (13%) had SDD. The SDD rate increased from 3% in 2015 to 21% in 2022. Patients with SDD were less likely to have a history of heart failure (21% vs. 26%, p = 0.005), chronic lung disease (10% vs. 15%, p = 0.001), or anemia (12% vs. 19%, p < 0.001). Technical success (87% vs. 88%, p = 0.289) was similar, but in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (0.0% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.041) were lower in SDD. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, prior myocardial infarction odds ratio (OR): 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.87, p = 0.001), chronic lung disease OR: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.47-0.88, p = 0.006), and increasing procedure time OR: 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95, p < 0.001, per 10-min increase) were associated with overnight observation, while radial-only access OR: 2.45 (95% CI: 2.03-2.96, p < 0.001) had the strongest association with SDD. In the SDD, 2 (0.4%) of 514 patients were readmitted, due to retroperitoneal bleeding (n = 1) and ischemic stroke (n = 1). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The overall frequency of SDD after CTO PCI was 13% and has been increasing over time. SDD is feasible in select patients following CTO PCI, and radial-only access had the strongest association with SDD.

BACKGROUND:The optimal duration of hemostatic compression post transradial access is controversial. Longer duration increases the risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO) while shorter duration increases the risk of access site bleeding or hematoma. As such, a target of 2 hours is typically used. Whether a shorter or longer duration is better is not known. METHODS:A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials of different duration (<90 minutes, 90 minutes, 2 hours, and 2-4 hours) of hemostasis banding. The efficacy outcome was RAO, primary safety outcome was access site hematoma, and secondary safety outcome was access site rebleeding. Primary analysis compared the effect of various duration in reference to the 2 hours duration using a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. RESULTS:Of the 10 randomized clinical trials included with 4911 patients, when compared to the 2-hour reference duration, there was a significantly higher risk of access site hematoma with 90 minutes (odds ratio, 2.39 [95% CI, 1.40-4.06]) and <90 minutes (odds ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 1.79-7.29]) but not with the 2 to 4 hours duration. When compared with the 2-hour reference, there was no significant difference in access site rebleeding or RAO with shorter or longer duration but the point estimates favored longer duration for access site rebleeding and shorter duration for RAO. Duration of <90 minutes and 90 minutes ranked 1 and duration of 2 hours ranked 2 as the most efficacious duration whereas duration of 2 hours ranked 1 and 2 to 4 hours ranked 2 as the safest duration. CONCLUSIONS:In patients undergoing transradial access for coronary angiography or intervention, a hemostasis duration of 2 hours offers the best balance for efficacy (prevention of RAO) and safety (prevention of access site hematoma/rebleeding).

Background: Potent P2Y12 inhibitors are recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), although the optimal antithrombotic strategy should be tailored based on patients thrombotic and hemorrhagic risk profile. We evaluated if the benefits associated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are similar in patients with different thrombotic risk profiles.
Method(s): PROMETHEUS was a multicenter observational study comparing prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing PCI. Patients were defined at high thrombotic risk if presenting with a clinical and a procedural risk feature. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using propensity-stratified analysis and with multivariable Cox regression.
Result(s): Among 16,065 patients, 4,293 were defined at high and 11,772 at low-to-moderate thrombotic risk. Patients receiving prasugrel had less comorbidities and risk factors than those treated with clopidogrel, both in the high and low-to-moderate thrombotic risk strata. High thrombotic risk patients had increased rates of ischemic and bleeding events at 90-day and 1-year follow-up. Patients treated with prasugrel had a lower adjusted 1-year risk of MACE (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96), irrespective of their thrombotic risk (pinteraction =0.32). Stratifying the study population by number of risk factors there was a significant interaction (pinteraction =0.026) for a greater reduction in MACE with prasugrel among patients with <=1 thrombotic risk factor. The risk of clinically significant bleeding was similar in patients treated with prasugrel and clopidogrel.
Conclusion(s): Patients with ACS at high thrombotic risk who undergo PCI are at increased risk of adverse events at 1 year. Prasugrel, mainly reserved to patients with less comorbidities, reduced the risk of ischemic events both in patients at high and low-to-moderate thrombotic risk as compared with clopidogrel.

BACKGROUND:Emerging evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing distal radial access (DRA) with conventional radial access (RA) is available. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative appraisal of the effects of DRA) vs conventional RA for coronary angiography with or without intervention. METHODS:The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for RCT comparing DRA vs conventional RA for coronary angiography and/or intervention. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The primary endpoint was radial artery occlusion (RAO) at the longest available follow-up. RESULTS:Fourteen studies enrolling 6,208 participants were included. Compared with conventional RA, DRA was associated with a significant lower risk of RAO, either detected at latest follow-up (risk ratio [RR]: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.23-0.56; P < 0.001; number needed to treat [NNT] = 30) or in-hospital (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.19-0.53; P < 0.001; NNT = 28), as well as EASY (Early Discharge After Transradial Stenting of Coronary Arteries) ≥II hematoma (RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.27-0.96; P = 0.04; NNT = 107). By contrast, DRA was associated with a higher risk of access site crossover (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 1.88-5.06; P < 0.001; NNT = 12), a longer time for radial puncture (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 3.56; 95% CI: 0.96-6.16; P < 0.001), a longer time for sheath insertion (SMD: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16-0.58; P < 0.001), and a higher number of puncture attempts (SMD: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.48-0.69; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with conventional RA, DRA is associated with lower risks of RAO and EASY ≥II hematoma but requires longer time for radial artery cannulation and sheath insertion, more puncture attempts, and a higher access site crossover.

BACKGROUND:Accumulating evidence from clinical trials suggests that a lower (restrictive) hemoglobin threshold (<8% g/dL) for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, compared with a higher (liberal) threshold (≥10 g/dL) is safe. However, in anemic patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), maintaining a higher hemoglobin level may increase oxygen delivery to vulnerable myocardium resulting in improved clinical outcomes. Conversely, RBC transfusion may result in increased blood viscosity, vascular inflammation, and reduction in available nitric oxide resulting in worse clinical outcomes. We hypothesize that a liberal transfusion strategy would improve clinical outcomes as compared to a more restrictive strategy. METHODS:We will enroll 3500 patients with acute MI (type 1, 2, 4b or 4c) as defined by the Third Universal Definition of MI and a hemoglobin <10 g/dL at 144 centers in the United States, Canada, France, Brazil, New Zealand, and Australia. We randomly assign trial participants to a liberal or restrictive transfusion strategy. Participants assigned to the liberal strategy receive transfusion of RBCs sufficient to raise their hemoglobin to at least 10 g/dL. Participants assigned to the restrictive strategy are permitted to receive transfusion of RBCs if the hemoglobin falls below 8 g/dL or for persistent angina despite medical therapy. We will contact each participant at 30 days to assess clinical outcomes and at 180 days to ascertain vital status. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause death or recurrent MI through 30 days following randomization. Secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality at 30 days, recurrent adjudicated MI, and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, nonfatal recurrent MI, ischemia driven unscheduled coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting), or readmission to the hospital for ischemic cardiac diagnosis within 30 days. The trial will assess multiple tertiary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS:The MINT trial will inform RBC transfusion practice in patients with acute MI.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether complete revascularization also improves angina-related health status is unknown. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine whether complete revascularization improves angina status in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This secondary analysis of a randomized, multinational, open label trial of patient-reported outcomes took place in 140 primary PCI centers in 31 countries. Patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized between February 1, 2013, and March 6, 2017. Analysis took place between July 2021 and December 2021. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Following PCI of the culprit lesion, patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to receive either complete revascularization with additional PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or to no further revascularization. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency (SAQ-AF) score (range, 0 [daily angina] to 100 [no angina]) and the proportion of angina-free individuals by study end. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 4041 patients, 2016 were randomized to complete revascularization and 2025 to culprit lesion-only PCI. The mean (SD) age of patients was 62 (10.7) years, and 3225 (80%) were male. The mean (SD) SAQ-AF score increased from 87.1 (17.8) points at baseline to 97.1 (9.7) points at a median follow-up of 3 years in the complete revascularization group (score change, 9.9 [95% CI, 9.0-10.8]; P < .001) compared with an increase of 87.2 (18.4) to 96.3 (10.9) points (score change, 8.9 [95% CI, 8.0-9.8]; P < .001) in the culprit lesion-only group (between-group difference, 0.97 points [95% CI, 0.27-1.67]; P = .006). Overall, 1457 patients (87.5%) were free of angina (SAQ-AF score, 100) in the complete revascularization group compared with 1376 patients (84.3%) in the culprit lesion-only group (absolute difference, 3.2% [95% CI, 0.7%-5.7%]; P = .01). This benefit was observed mainly in patients with nonculprit lesion stenosis severity of 80% or more (absolute difference, 4.7%; interaction P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization resulted in a slightly greater proportion of patients being angina-free compared with a culprit lesion-only strategy. This modest incremental improvement in health status is in addition to the established benefit of complete revascularization in reducing cardiovascular events.

In the United States, the frequency of using percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is increasing. These devices require large-bore vascular access to provide left, right, or biventricular cardiac support, frequently under urgent/emergent circumstances. Significant technical and logistical variability exists in device insertion, care, and removal in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and in the cardiac intensive care unit. This variability in practice may contribute to adverse outcomes observed in centers that receive patients with cardiogenic shock, who are at higher risk for circulatory insufficiency, venous stasis, bleeding, and arterial hypoperfusion. In this position statement, we aim to: 1) describe the public health impact of bleeding and vascular complications in cardiogenic shock; 2) highlight knowledge gaps for vascular safety and provide a roadmap for a regulatory perspective necessary for advancing the field; 3) propose a minimum core set of process elements, or "vascular safety bundle"; and 4) develop a possible study design for a pragmatic trial platform to evaluate which structured approach to vascular access drives most benefit and prevents vascular and bleeding complications in practice.

BACKGROUND:Oral activated factor XI (FXIa) inhibitors may modulate coagulation to prevent thromboembolic events without substantially increasing bleeding. We explored the pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy of the oral FXIa inhibitor asundexian for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS:We randomized 1601 patients with recent acute MI to oral asundexian 10, 20, or 50 mg or placebo once daily for 6 to 12 months in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2, dose-ranging trial. Patients were randomized within 5 days of their qualifying MI and received dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The effect of asundexian on FXIa inhibition was assessed at 4 weeks. The prespecified main safety outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding comparing all pooled asundexian doses with placebo. The prespecified efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or stent thrombosis comparing pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg doses with placebo. RESULTS:The median age was 68 years, 23% of participants were women, 51% had ST-segment-elevation MI, 80% were treated with aspirin plus ticagrelor or prasugrel, and 99% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention before randomization. Asundexian caused dose-related inhibition of FXIa activity, with 50 mg resulting in >90% inhibition. Over a median follow-up of 368 days, the main safety outcome occurred in 30 (7.6%), 32 (8.1%), 42 (10.5%), and 36 (9.0%) patients receiving asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian versus placebo: hazard ratio, 0.98 [90% CI, 0.71-1.35]). The efficacy outcome occurred in 27 (6.8%), 24 (6.0%), 22 (5.5%), and 22 (5.5%) patients assigned asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg versus placebo: hazard ratio, 1.05 [90% CI, 0.69-1.61]). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with recent acute MI, 3 doses of asundexian, when added to aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, resulted in dose-dependent, near-complete inhibition of FXIa activity without a significant increase in bleeding and a low rate of ischemic events. These data support the investigation of asundexian at a dose of 50 mg daily in an adequately powered clinical trial of patients who experienced acute MI. REGISTRATION:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT04304534; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search; Unique identifier: 2019-003244-79.

BACKGROUND:The relative safety and efficacy of de-escalation, extended duration (ED) (>12-months) and standard dual antiplatelet therapy for 12-months (DAPT-12) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. METHODS:Online databases were queried to identify relevant randomized control trials (RCTs). ED-DAPT, high-potency (HP) DAPT, shorter duration (SD) DAPT and low-dose (LD) DAPT were compared with DAPT-12. A trial sequential, bivariate, influential and frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to determine the pooled estimates. RESULTS:A total of 30 RCTs comprising 81 208 (40 839 experimental, 40 369 control arm) patients with CAD were included in the quantitative analysis. On NMA, compared with DAPT-12, all types of de-escalation, HP-DAPT-12 and ED-DAPT strategies had a statistically non-significant difference in the incidence of MACE at a median follow-up of 1-year. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of stroke, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and all-cause mortality between DAPT-12 and all other strategies. The network estimates showed a significantly lower incidence of major bleeding with DAPT for 3-months followed by P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.84), while a higher risk of bleeding with HP-DAPT for 12 months (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.16-2.06). The net clinical benefit and rankograms also favored DAPT-3 (P2Y12) and discouraged the use of HP-DAPT-12 and ED-DAPT. A subgroup analysis of 19 RCTs restricted to patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) mirrored the findings of pooled analysis. A sensitivity analysis revealed no influence of any individual study or individual strategy on net ischemic estimates. The trial sequential analysis (TSA) illustrated a consistently non-significant difference at the interim analysis of trials, reaching the futility area for MACE, while the cumulative Z-values line surpassed the monitoring boundary as well as the required information size for major bleeding favoring de-escalation strategy. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:DAPT for 3 months followed by ticagrelor-only and use of aspirin + clopidogrel after a short period of high potency DAPT appears to be a safe strategy for treating post-PCI patients. However, given the methodological limitations and inclusion of a small number of trials in novel de-escalation strategies, these findings need validation by future large scale RCTs.