Management and outcomes of patients with left atrial appendage thrombus prior to percutaneous closure

Altres ajuts: Fundación Interhospitalaria para la Investigación Cardiovascular (FIC Foundation); Abbott.Objective: Left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombus has heretofore been considered a contraindication to percutaneous LAA closure (LAAC). Data regarding its management are very limited. The aim of this study was to analyse the medical and invasive treatment of patients referred for LAAC in the presence of LAA thrombus. Methods: This multicentre observational registry included 126 consecutive patients referred for LAAC with LAA thrombus on preprocedural imaging. Treatment strategies included intensification of antithrombotic therapy (IAT) or direct LAAC. The primary and secondary endpoints were a composite of bleeding, stroke and death at 18 months, and procedural success, respectively. Results: IAT was the preferred strategy in 57.9% of patients, with total thrombus resolution observed in 60.3% and 75.3% after initial and subsequent IAT, respectively. Bleeding complications and stroke during IAT occurred in 9.6% and 2.9%, respectively, compared with 3.8% bleeding and no embolic events in the direct LAAC group before the procedure. Procedural success was 90.5% (96.2% vs 86.3% in direct LAAC and IAT group, respectively, p=0.072), without cases of in-hospital thromboembolic complications. The primary endpoint occurred in 29.3% and device-related thrombosis was found in 12.8%, without significant difference according to treatment strategy. Bleeding complications at 18 months occurred in 22.5% vs 10.5% in the IAT and direct LAAC group, respectively (p=0.102). Conclusion: In the presence of LAA thrombus, IAT was the initial management strategy in half of our cohort, with initial thrombus resolution in 60% of these, but with a relatively high bleeding rate (∼10%). Direct LAAC was feasible, with high procedural success and absence of periprocedural embolic complications. However, a high rate of device-related thrombosis was detected during follow-up

Assessing the cardiology community position on transradial intervention and the use of bivalirudin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: results of an EAPCI survey.

AIMS: Our aim was to report on a survey initiated by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) collecting the opinion of the cardiology community on the invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), before and after the MATRIX trial presentation at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2015 Scientific Sessions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A web-based survey was distributed to all individuals registered on the EuroIntervention mailing list (n=15,200). A total of 572 and 763 physicians responded to the pre- and post-ACC survey, respectively. The radial approach emerged as the preferable access site for ACS patients undergoing invasive management with roughly every other responder interpreting the evidence for mortality benefit as definitive and calling for a guidelines upgrade to class I. The most frequently preferred anticoagulant in ACS patients remains unfractionated heparin (UFH), due to higher costs and greater perceived thrombotic risks associated with bivalirudin. However, more than a quarter of participants declared the use of bivalirudin would increase after MATRIX. CONCLUSIONS: The MATRIX trial reinforced the evidence for a causal association between bleeding and mortality and triggered consensus on the superiority of the radial versus femoral approach. The belief that bivalirudin mitigates bleeding risk is common, but UFH still remains the preferred anticoagulant based on lower costs and thrombotic risks

Dual antiplatelet therapy duration after coronary stenting in clinical practice: results of an EAPCI survey

Aims: Our aim was to report on a survey initiated by the EuropeanAssociation of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) concerning opinion on the evidence relating to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration after coronary stenting.Methods and results: Results from three randomised clinical trials were scheduled to be presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2014 (ARIA 2014). A web-based survey was distributed to all individuals registered in the EuroIntervention mailing list (n=15,200) both before and after ARIA 2014. A total of 1,134 physicians responded to the first (i.e., before AHA 2014) and 542 to the second (i.e., after ARIA 2014) survey. The majority of respondents interpreted trial results consistent with a substantial equipoise regarding the benefits and risks of an extended versus a standard DAPT strategy. Two respondents out of ten believed extended DAFT should be implemented in selected patients. After ARIA 2014, 46.1% of participants expressed uncertainty about the available evidence on DAFT duration, and 40.0% the need for clinical guidance.Conclusions: This EAPCI survey highlights considerable uncertainty within the medical community with regard to the optimal duration of DAFT after coronary stenting in the light of recent reported trial results. Updated recommendations for practising physicians to guide treatment decisions in routine clinical practice should be provided by international societies