Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention or after acute coronary syndrome

To prevent recurrent ischaemic events, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention and in the treatment of acute coronary syndrome. Recent evidence supports an adjusted DAPT duration in selected patients. The current paper aims to encourage cardiologists to actively search for patients benefiting from either shorter or prolonged duration DAPT and proposes an algorithm to identify patients who are likely to benefit from such an alternative strategy. Individualised DAPT duration should be considered in high-risk anatomic and/or clinical subgroups or in patients at increased haemorrhagic risk with low ischaemic risk. Both thrombotic and haemorrhagic risk should be assessed in all patients. In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the interventional cardiologist could advise on the minimal duration of DAPT. However, in contrast to the minimum duration of DAPT for stent thrombosis prevention, longer duration DAPT is aimed at prevention of spontaneous myocardial infarction, and not at stent thrombos

Antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing TAVI: An overview of Dutch hospitals

Purpose To assess current antithrombotic treatment strategies in the Netherlands in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods For every Dutch hospital performing TAVI (n =14) an interventional cardiologist experienced in performing TAVI was interviewed concerning heparin, aspirin, thienopyridine and oral anticoagulation treatment in patients undergoing TAVI. Results The response rate was 100 %. In every centre, a protocol for antithrombotic treatment after TAVI was available. Aspirin was prescribed in all centres, concomitant clopidogrel was prescribed 13 of the 14 centres. Duration of concomitant clopidogrel was 3 months in over twothirds of cases. In 2 centres, duration of concomitant clopidogrel was based upon type of prosthesis: 6 months versus 3 months for supra-annular and intra-annular prostheses, respectively. Conclusions Leaning on a small basis of evidence and recommendations, the antithrombotic policy for patients undergoing TAVI is highly variable in the Netherlands. As a standardised regimen might further reduce haemorrhagic complications, large randomised clinical trials may help to establish the most appropriate approach

Conservative versus invasive strategy in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the international POPular age registry

This registry assessed the impact of conservative and invasive strategies on major adverse clinical events (MACE) in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Patients aged ≥75 years with NSTEMI were prospectively registered from European centers and followed up for one year. Outcomes were compared between conservative and invasive groups in the overall population and a propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort. MACE included cardiovascular death, acute coronary syndrome, and stroke. The study included 1190 patients (median age 80 years, 43% female). CAG was performed in 67% (N = 798), with two-thirds undergoing revascularization. Conservatively treated patients had higher baseline risk. After propensity score matching, 319 patient pairs were successfully matched. MACE occurred more frequently in the conservative group (total population 20% vs. 12%, adjHR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37–0.77, p = 0.001), remaining significant in the PSM cohort (18% vs. 12%, adjHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31–0.81, p = 0.004). In conclusion, an early invasive strategy was associated with benefits over conservative management in elderly patients with NSTEMI. Risk factors associated with ischemia and bleeding should guide strategy selection rather than solely relying on age

Platelet GP IIb-IIIa Receptor Antagonists in Primary Angioplasty: Back to the Future

Item does not contain fulltextCoronary artery disease and acute myocardial infarction still represent the leading cause of mortality in developed countries. Therefore, great efforts have been made in the last decades to improve reperfusion strategies and adjunctive antithrombotic therapies. In fact, despite optimal epicardial recanalisation, a large proportion of patients still experience impaired reperfusion and in-stent thrombosis. The adjunctive use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb-IIIa inhibitors may certainly contribute in the reduction of such complications, especially when administered in the early phase of infarction. In fact, in this phase a larger platelet composition of the thrombus and the presence of a larger amount of viable myocardium, as compared to a delayed phase, may increase the benefits from this therapy and counterbalance the potential higher risk of bleeding. A large body of evidence has been accumulated on the benefits from GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors in terms of prevention of stent thrombosis, and benefits in mortality, especially among high-risk patients and as upstream strategy. Therefore, based on current available data, GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors can be recommended as early as possible (upstream strategy) among high-risk patients, such as those with advanced Killip class or anterior myocardial infarction (MI), and those presenting within the first three hours. Even though it is not universally accepted, in our opinion this strategy should be implemented in a pre-hospital setting (in ambulance) or at first hospital admission (Emergency Room or Coronary Care Unit, irrespective of whether they are in the spoke or hub hospitals). Peri-procedural intracoronary administration of GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors has not provided additional benefits as compared to intravenous administration and therefore cannot be recommended. Even though the vast majority of trials have been conducted with abciximab, several meta-analyses comparing small molecules (mainly high-dose tirofiban rather than eptifibatide) versus abciximab showed similar angiographic and clinical results between the molecules. Several recent investigations and meta-analyses have documented the higher risk of stent thrombosis associated with bivalirudin as compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH). Being that these results are independent from the use of GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors, UFH should still remain the anticoagulation therapy of choice in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. Minimisation of bleeding complications by extensive use of the radial approach, in the setting of STEMI, may further contribute to the adoption of a more aggressive antithrombotic and antiplatelet therapy incorporating the use of GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors. The establishment of dedicated networks for STEMI, and the large STEMI campaign, will certainly contribute to increase the proportion of patients presenting at first medical contact within the early phase (3 h) of infarction and therefore highly suitable for a more aggressive pharmacoinvasive approach with upstream administration of GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors. In fact, although the current therapeutic targets of increased rates of timely reperfusion, mainly by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), has been achieved, a deep look into the future in the fight against MI will certainly put aborting infarction as the major desirable target to be achieved