Safety and Efficacy of Double Antithrombotic Therapy With Non–Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Background The optimal antithrombotic therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is a topic of debate. We aimed at defining the efficacy and safety of double antithrombotic therapy with single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) against triple antithrombotic therapy with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) added to a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), illustrating the pooled cumulative distribution of events, the ranking of different NOACs tested in NOAC+SAPT combination strategies, and the state of the current evidence in the field. Methods and Results Randomized controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of trial‐defined major adverse cardiac events. The primary safety end point was clinically significant bleeding. Secondary end points were the components of primary end points. Trial‐level pairwise and Bayesian network meta‐analyses, reconstructed Kaplan–Meier analyses, and trial sequential analysis were performed. Four randomized controlled trials (10 969 patients) were included. No differences were found in terms of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.94–1.22), and the NOAC+SAPT strategy showed a lower rate of clinically significant bleeding compared with VKA + DAPT (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39–0.80). These results were consistent in reconstructed Kaplan–Meier analyses. In the Bayesian network meta‐analysis, different NOACs displayed diverse risk–benefit profiles. Trial sequential analyses suggest that the evidence for the similarity in major adverse cardiac events compared with VKA + DAPT and the bleeding risk reduction observed with NOAC+SAPT is likely to be conclusive. Conclusions NOAC+SAPT does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events and reduces the risk of bleeding compared with VKA + DAPT in AF patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Various NOACs may have different risk–benefit profiles in combination strategies. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ; Unique identifier: CRD42020151089

Impact of renal function on clinical outcomes after PCI in ACS and stable CAD patients treated with ticagrelor: a prespecified analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS randomized clinical trial

Background: Impaired renal function (IRF) is associated with increased risks of both ischemic and bleeding events. Ticagrelor has been shown to provide greater absolute reduction in ischemic risk following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in those with versus without IRF. Methods: A pre-specified sub-analysis of the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial (n = 15,991) comparing the experimental strategy of 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy (after 1-month ticagrelor and aspirin dual anti-platelet therapy [DAPT]) with 12-month DAPT followed by 12-month aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ACS and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients stratified according to IRF (glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2). Results: At 2 years, patients with IRF (n = 2171) had a higher rate of the primary endpoint (all-cause mortality or centrally adjudicated, new Q-wave myocardial infarction [MI](hazard ratio [HR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35–1.98, padj = 0.001), all-cause death, site-reported MI, all revascularization and BARC 3 or 5 type bleeding, compared with patients without IRF. Among patients with IRF, there were similar rates of the primary endpoint (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61–1.11, p = 0.192, pint = 0.680) and BARC 3 or 5 type bleeding (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.71–1.71, p = 0.656, pint = 0.506) in the experimental versus the reference group. No significant interactions were seen between IRF and treatment effect for any of the secondary outcome variables. Among ACS patients with IRF, there were no between-group differences in the rates of the primary endpoint or BARC 3 or 5 type bleeding; however, the rates of the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) of all-cause death, any stroke, MI, or revascularization (pint = 0.028) and net adverse clinical events (POCE and BARC 3 or 5 type bleeding) (pint = 0.045), were lower in the experimental versus the reference group. No treatment effects were found in stable CAD patients categorized according to presence of IRF. Conclusions: IRF negatively impacted long-term prognosis after PCI. There were no differential treatment effects found with regard to all-cause death or new Q-wave MI after PCI in patients with IRF treated with ticagrelor monotherapy. Clinical trial regis

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance for the assessment of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a pilot study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Before trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), assessment of cardiac function and accurate measurement of the aortic root are key to determine the correct size and type of the prosthesis. The aim of this study was to compare cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and trans-thoracic echocardiography (TTE) for the assessment of aortic valve measurements and left ventricular function in high-risk elderly patients submitted to TAVI.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis and contraindications for surgical aortic valve replacement were screened from April 2009 to January 2011 and imaged with TTE and CMR.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients who underwent both TTE and CMR (n = 49) had a mean age of 80.8 ± 4.8 years and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 14.9 ± 9.3%. There was a good correlation between TTE and CMR in terms of annulus size (R²= 0.48, p < 0.001), left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter (R²= 0.62, p < 0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (R²= 0.47, p < 0.001) and a moderate correlation in terms of aortic valve area (AVA) (R²= 0.24, p < 0.001). CMR generally tended to report larger values than TTE for all measurements. The Bland-Altman test indicated that the 95% limits of agreement between TTE and CMR ranged from -5.6 mm to + 1.0 mm for annulus size, from -0.45 mm to + 0.25 mm for LVOT, from -0.45 mm²to + 0.25 mm²for AVA and from -29.2% to 13.2% for LVEF.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In elderly patients candidates to TAVI, CMR represents a viable complement to transthoracic echocardiography.</p

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention–related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Consensus Document From the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention–related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention