Comparison of prasugrel and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Antiplatelet agents are the cornerstone of treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Clopidogrel, when added to aspirin, has demonstrated considerable success at reducing thrombotic complications of ACS and/or PCI compared to aspirin alone and is standard of care for the management of patients with ACS and in patients undergoing PCI. Prasugrel is a novel thienopyridine antiplatelet agent recently approved for the treatment of patients with ACS undergoing PCI. Prasugrel provides greater and more consistent platelet inhibition than clopidogrel due to earlier and more extensive formation of its active metabolite. The enhanced platelet inhibition with prasugrel led to a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with moderate to high risk ACS scheduled for PCI in the phase 3 TRITON-TIMI 38 trial. This benefit was seen more in patients suffering a STEMI and those with diabetes. However, this reduction in events was met with a significant increase in the risk of bleeding which overcame prasugrel’s benefit in certain groups. Future studies with prasugrel are needed to determine its optimal utilization to minimize bleeding risks and evaluate its outcomes in ACS and safety profile in special patient populations

Rapidly Evolving Coronary Aneurysm in a Patient with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Coronary artery aneurysm (CAA) formation in the setting of an acute inflammatory state due to connective tissue disease is rare. We report a case of rapid progression from an ectatic to an aneursymatic left circumflex coronary artery leading to an acute coronary event in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We report the accelerated growth of the aneurysm as it was temporally related to the lapse in treatment and the management strategies involved with this entity

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Catheterization Laboratory Survey

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is expected to affect operations and lifestyles of interventional cardiologists around the world in unprecedented ways. Timely gathering of information on this topic can provide valuable insight and improve the handling of the ongoing and future pandemic outbreaks. Methods and Results A survey instrument developed by the authors was disseminated via e‐mail, text messaging, WhatsApp, and social media to interventional cardiologists between April 6, 2020, and April 11, 2020. A total of 509 responses were collected from 18 countries, mainly from the United States (51%) and Italy (36%). Operators reported significant decline in coronary, structural heart, and endovascular procedure volumes. Personal protective equipment was available to 95% of respondents; however FIT‐tested N95 or equivalent masks were available to only 70%, and 74% indicated absence of coronavirus disease 2019 pretesting. Most (83%) operators expressed concern when asked to perform cardiac catheterization on a suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 patient, primarily because of fear of viral transmission (88%). Although the survey demonstrated significant compliance with social distancing, high use of telemedicine (69%), and online education platforms (80%), there was concern over impending financial loss. Conclusions Our survey indicates significant reduction in invasive procedure volumes and concern for viral transmission. There is near universal adoption of personal protective equipment; however, coronavirus disease 2019 pretesting and access to FIT‐tested N95 masks is suboptimal. Although there is concern over impending financial loss, substantial engagement in telemedicine and online education is reported

Endovascular versus surgical treatment for acute limb ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

BackgroundA number of small studies have suggested that outcomes following endovascular (ENDO) therapy are comparable to those following surgical (SURG) revascularization for patients presenting with acute limb ischemia (ALI). We sought to compare mortality, limb amputation and recurrent ischemia across both revascularization strategies.MethodsA comprehensive database search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases from January 1990 through January 2016 was performed to identify studies of ENDO versus SURG for ALI. Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted the data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool results across studies. Heterogeneity of treatment effect among trials was assessed using the I2 statistics. The primary endpoints were mortality and limb amputation at 1 month, 6 and 12 months. Secondary endpoint was recurrent ischemia at one year.ResultsA total of 1,773 patients were included from six studies (five randomized prospective and one observational retrospective) comparing ENDO and SURG in the setting of ALI. The mean age was 67 years and 65% of patients were male. There were no differences in mortality between the two groups at 1 month [risk ratio (RR) for ENDO vs. SURG is 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33 to 1.50], 6 months (RR 1.12; CI, 0.78 to 1.61) or 12 months (RR 0.74; CI, 0.29 to 1.85). Similarly, there was no significant difference in amputation rates between ENDO and SURG at 1 month (RR 0.75; CI, 0.40 to 1.42), 6 months (RR 0.87; CI, 0.52 to 1.48) or 12 months (RR 0.81; CI, 0.55 to 1.18). When looking into secondary outcomes, recurrent ischemia was not different between the two groups (RR 1.12; CI, 0.75 to 1.67).ConclusionsIn patients presenting with ALI (<2 weeks of duration), ENDO and SURG approaches have similar rates of short-term and 12 month mortality, limb amputation and recurrent ischemia