Rationale and Design of the PARTHENOPE Trial: A Two-by-Two Factorial Comparison of Polymer-Free vs. Biodegradable-Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents and Personalized vs. Standard Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in All-Comers Undergoing PCI.

BACKGROUND Over the past few decades, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has undergone significant advancements as a result of the combination of device-based and drug-based therapies. These iterations have led to the development of polymer-free drug-eluting stents. However, there is a scarcity of data regarding their clinical performance. Furthermore, while various risk scores have been proposed to determine the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), none of them have undergone prospective validation within the context of randomized trials. DESIGN The PARTHENOPE trial is a phase IV, prospective, randomized, multicenter, investigator-initiated, assessor-blind study being conducted at 13 centers in Italy (NCT04135989). It includes 2,107 all-comers patients with minimal exclusion criteria, randomly assigned in a 2-by-2 design to receive either the Cre8 amphilimus-eluting stent or the SYNERGY everolimus-eluting stent, along with either a personalized or standard duration of DAPT. Personalized DAPT duration is determined by the DAPT score, which accounts for both bleeding and ischemic risks. Patients with a DAPT score <2 (indicating higher bleeding than ischemic risk) receive DAPT for 3 or 6 months for chronic or acute coronary syndrome, respectively, while patients with a DAPT score ≥2 (indicating higher ischemic than bleeding risk) receive DAPT for 24 months. Patients in the standard DAPT group receive DAPT for 12 months. The trial aims to establish the non-inferiority between stents with respect to a device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically-driven target-lesion revascularization at 12 months after PCI. Additionally, the trial aims to demonstrate the superiority of personalized DAPT compared to a standard approach with respect to a net clinical composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent target-vessel revascularization, or type 2 to 5 bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria at 24-months after PCI. SUMMARY The PARTHENOPE trial is the largest randomized trial investigating the efficacy and safety of a polymer-free DES with a reservoir technology for drug-release and the first trial evaluating a personalized duration of DAPT based on the DAPT score. The study results will provide novel insights into the optimizing the use of drug-eluting stents and DAPT in patients undergoing PCI

Development of a set of nomograms to predict acute lower gastrointestinal toxicity for prostate cancer 3D-CRT

To predict acute Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and Subjective Objective Signs Management and Analysis/Late Effect of Normal Tissue (SOMA/LENT) toxicities of the lower gastrointestinal (LGI) syndrome in patients with prostate cancer undergoing three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy using a tool (nomogram) that takes into account clinical and dosimetric variables that proved to be significant in the Italian Association for Radiation Oncology (AIRO) Group on Prostate Cancer (AIROPROS) 0102 trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Acute rectal toxicity was scored in 1,132 patients by using both the RTOG/EORTC scoring system and a 10-item self-assessed questionnaire. Correlation between clinical variables/dose-volume histogram constraints and rectal toxicity was investigated by means of multivariate logistic analyses. Multivariate logistic analyses results were used to create nomograms predicting the symptoms of acute LGI syndrome. RESULTS: Mean rectal dose was a strong predictor of Grade 2-3 RTOG/EORTC acute LGI toxicity (p = 0.0004; odds ratio (OR) = 1.035), together with hemorrhoids (p = 0.02; OR = 1.51), use of anticoagulants/antiaggregants (p = 0.02; OR = 0.63), and androgen deprivation (AD) (p = 0.04; OR = 0.65). Diabetes (p = 0.34; OR = 1.28) and pelvic node irradiation (p = 0.11; OR = 1.56) were significant variables to adjust toxicity prediction. Bleeding was related to hemorrhoids (p = 0.02; OR = 173), AD (p = 0.17; OR = 0.67), and mean rectal dose (p = 0.009; OR = 1.024). Stool frequency was related to seminal vesicle irradiation (p = 0.07; OR = 6.46), AD administered for more than 3 months (p = 0.002; OR = 0.32), and the percent volume of rectum receiving more than 60 Gy (V60Gy) V60 (p = 0.02; OR = 1.02). Severe fecal incontinence depended on seminal vesicle irradiation (p = 0.14; OR = 4.5) and V70 (p = 0.033; OR = 1.029). CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this work presents the first set of nomograms available in the literature specific to symptoms of LGI syndrome and provides clinicians with a tailored probability of the specific outcome. Validation of the tool is in progres

Italian certification for interventional cardiologists from the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE)

Differently from many European and non-European countries, currently in Italy there is not an official, well-defined process for training, evaluation and certification for interventional cardiologists. Interventional Cardiology is an important branch of Cardiology with peculiarities such as to need specific theoretical and practical training. The lack of standardization of training criteria may result in disparities in the quality of care offered to patients in different locations. The Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE) has therefore developed an independent certification process for Italian interventional cardiologists. This is a first step towards the implementation of a well-defined training and certification process for both coronary and structural interventions, and for regular re-certification of established operators.The certification will be issued by SICI-GISE and will be based on the recognition of the skills attained by interventional cardiologists in the setting of coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures. This document describes the minimum eligibility criteria for the training centers, which have the task of recording and validating the training activity carried out by each interventional cardiologist, and the minimum competence requirements that should be attained by the operators to obtain the certification

Italian certification for interventional cardiologists from the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE)

Differently from many European and non-European countries, currently in Italy there is not an official, well-defined process for training, evaluation and certification for interventional cardiologists. Interventional Cardiology is an important branch of Cardiology with peculiarities such as to need specific theoretical and practical training. The lack of standardization of training criteria may result in disparities in the quality of care offered to patients in different locations. The Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE) has therefore developed an independent certification process for Italian interventional cardiologists. This is a first step towards the implementation of a well-defined training and certification process for both coronary and structural interventions, and for regular re-certification of established operators.The certification will be issued by SICI-GISE and will be based on the recognition of the skills attained by interventional cardiologists in the setting of coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures. This document describes the minimum eligibility criteria for the training centers, which have the task of recording and validating the training activity carried out by each interventional cardiologist, and the minimum competence requirements that should be attained by the operators to obtain the certification

[Online Addenda: Italian certification for interventional cardiologists from the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE)]

n

Incidence, predictors and cerebrovascular consequences of leaflet thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES We examined the incidence, the impact of subsequent cerebrovascular events and the clinical or procedural predictors of leaflet thrombosis (LT) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS MEDLINE/PubMed was systematically screened for studies reporting on LT in TAVI patients. Incidence [both clinical and subclinical, i.e. detected with computed tomography (CT)] of LT was the primary end point of the study. Predictors of LT evaluated at multivariable analysis and impact of LT on stroke were the secondary ones. RESULTS Eighteen studies encompassing 11 124 patients evaluating incidence of LT were included. Pooled incidence of LT was 0.43% per month [5.16% per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.72, I2 = 98%]. Pooled incidence of subclinical LT was 1.36% per month (16.32% per year, 95% CI 0.71-2.19, I2 = 94%). Clinical LT was less frequent (0.04% per month, 0.48% per year, 95% CI 0.00-0.19, I2 = 93%). LT increased the risk of stroke [odds ratio (OR) 4.21, 95% CI 1.27-13.98], and was more frequent in patients with a valve diameter of 28-mm (OR 2.89: 1.55-5.8), for balloon-expandable (OR 8: 2.1-9.7) or after valve-in-valve procedures (OR 17.1: 3.1-84.9). Oral anticoagulation therapy reduced the risk of LT (OR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.22-0.84, I2 = 64%), as well as the mean transvalvular gradient. CONCLUSIONS LT represents an infrequent event after TAVI, despite increasing risk of stroke. Given its full reversal with warfarin, in high-risk patients (those with valve-in-valve procedures, balloon expandable or large-sized devices), a protocol which includes a control CT appears reasonable

P2Y12 Inhibitor or Aspirin Monotherapy for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Events.

BACKGROUND Aspirin is the only antiplatelet agent with a Class I recommendation for long-term prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). There is inconsistent evidence on how it compares with alternative antiplatelet agents. OBJECTIVES This study compared P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin in patients with CAD. METHODS We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with established CAD. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Prespecified key secondary outcomes were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (the composite of the primary outcome and major bleeding). Data were pooled in a 1-step meta-analysis. RESULTS Patient-level data were obtained from 7 trials. Overall, 24,325 participants were available for analysis, including 12,178 patients assigned to receive P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (clopidogrel in 7,545 [62.0%], ticagrelor in 4,633 [38.0%]) and 12,147 assigned to receive aspirin. Risk of the primary outcome was lower with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with aspirin over 2 years (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97; P = 0.012), mainly owing to less myocardial infarction (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66-0.90; P < 0.001). Major bleeding was similar (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-1.09; P = 0.23) and net adverse clinical events were lower (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81-0.98; P = 0.020) with P2Y12 inhibitors. The treatment effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups and types of P2Y12 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS Given its superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy might be preferred over aspirin monotherapy for long-term secondary prevention in patients with established CAD. (P2Y12 Inhibitor or Aspirin Monotherapy as Secondary Prevention in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials [PANTHER collaborative initiative]; CRD42021290774)