Modern Antiplatelet Therapy: When Is Clopidogrel the Right Choice?

Platelet inhibition with aspirin is the cornerstone of medical therapy for coronary artery disease. In the era of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents, dual anti-platelet therapy with the addition of clopidogrel (Plavix©, Bristol-Myers Squibb, New York, NY) became the mainstay of therapy. However, with the advent of newer oral antiplatelet medications, including prasugrel (Effient©, Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana) and ticagrelor (Brilinta©, Astra-Zeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom), choosing the appropriate platelet inhibitor has become more nuanced. The optimal regimen differs based on patient characteristics, clinical situation, and the condition being treated, with differing risk and safety profiles for these medications. This review explores the appropriate use of antiplatelet therapy for stable ischemic heart disease, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease. Furthermore, we evaluate the data behind the use of antiplatelet therapy in patients on oral anticoagulation. By understanding the biochemistry of platelet aggregation, the pharmacology of platelet inhibitors, and the extensive clinical trial data that informs current guideline recommendations we aim to better understand the role of clopidogrel in patients with cardiovascular disease

CORRELATION BETWEEN LEUKOCYTE TELOMERE LENGTH AND DRUG ELUTING STENT STRUT COVERAGE BY OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY

El cementiri de Sant Andreu fou inaugurat el 1839 i pertanyia a Sant Andreu del Palomar que formava part del Pla de Barcelona. Sembla que fou la primera població del Pla que va disposar de cementiri desprès de la construcció del de Poblenou

Outcomes after angiography with sodium bicarbonate and acetylcysteine

Background: Intravenous sodium bicarbonate and oral acetylcysteine are widely used to prevent acute kidney injury and associated adverse outcomes after angiography without definitive evidence of their efficacy. Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned 5177 patients at high risk for renal complications who were scheduled for angiography to receive intravenous 1.26% sodium bicarbonate or intravenous 0.9% sodium chloride and 5 days of oral acetylcysteine or oral placebo; of these patients, 4993 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The primary end point was a composite of death, the need for dialysis, or a persistent increase of at least 50% from baseline in the serum creatinine level at 90 days. Contrast-associated acute kidney injury was a secondary end point. Results: The sponsor stopped the trial after a prespecified interim analysis. There was no interaction between sodium bicarbonate and acetylcysteine with respect to the primary end point (P=0.33). The primary end point occurred in 110 of 2511 patients (4.4%) in the sodium bicarbonate group as compared with 116 of 2482 (4.7%) in the sodium chloride group (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.22; P=0.62) and in 114 of 2495 patients (4.6%) in the acetylcysteine group as compared with 112 of 2498 (4.5%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.33; P=0.88). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of contrast-associated acute kidney injury. Conclusions: Among patients at high risk for renal complications who were undergoing angiography, there was no benefit of intravenous sodium bicarbonate over intravenous sodium chloride or of oral acetylcysteine over placebo for the prevention of death, need for dialysis, or persistent decline in kidney function at 90 days or for the prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; PRESERVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01467466.

Comparative Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Elderly Patients Undergoing Revascularization of Chronic Total Coronary Occlusions Results From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, 2005–2008

ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate the long-term effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS).BackgroundImproved recanalization techniques have increased interest in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO). The long-term effectiveness of DES and BMS is not known.MethodsWe used data from 10,261 stable patients age ≥65 years at 889 U.S. hospitals who underwent CTO PCI from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2008, in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) CathPCI Registry with linked Medicare inpatient claims for follow-up. Patient and procedural characteristics, and 30-month death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and hospitalization for bleeding were evaluated by stent type. Outcomes following stenting were adjusted and compared using propensity score matching.ResultsDES were used for CTO PCI in 8,218 (80%) and BMS in 2,043 (20%). DES patients were younger (74.0 vs. 75.5 years, p < 0.001), had longer lesions (18.8 vs. 16.5 mm, p < 0.001), received more stents (≥2 stents in 45.7% vs. 37.9%, p < 0.001), and underwent multivessel PCI (18.9% vs. 15.1%, p < 0.001). DES implantation was associated with a lower hazard of mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: = 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60 to 0.86, p < 0.001), a similar hazard for myocardial infarction (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.19, p = 0.35), and subsequent revascularization (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.12, p = 0.48), including PCI (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.19, p = 0.87) and coronary artery bypass grafting (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.10, p = 0.12). Hospitalization for bleeding was also similar for DES versus BMS (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.39, p = 0.70).ConclusionsCompared with BMS, DES use in stable patients undergoing CTO PCI was associated with lower mortality, as well as similar myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization rates without an increase in subsequent bleeding requiring hospitalization

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Drug-Eluting Stent Use Among Patients ≥85 Years of Age in the United States

ObjectivesThis study assessed the comparative effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) among patients ≥85 years of age.BackgroundDespite an aging population, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of DES versus BMS among patients age ≥85 years undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsWe examined 471,006 PCI patients age ≥65 years at 947 hospitals in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry between 2004 and 2008 and linked to Medicare claims data. Long-term outcomes (median follow-up 640.8 ± 423.5 days) were compared between users of DES and BMS.ResultsPatients age ≥85 years comprise an increasing proportion of PCIs performed among elderly subjects, yet rates of DES use declined the most in this age group. Compared with BMS, use of DES was associated with lower mortality: age ≥85 years, 29% versus 38% (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77 to 0.83]); age 75 to 84 years, 17% versus 25% (HR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.75 to 0.79]); and age 65 to 74 years, 10% versus 16% (HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.71 to 0.75]). However, the adjusted mortality difference narrowed with increasing age (pinteraction <0.001). In contrast, the adjusted HR for myocardial infarction rehospitalization associated with DES use was significantly lower with increasing age: age ≥85 years, 9% versus 12% (HR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.71 to 0.83]); age 75 to 84 years, 7% versus 9% (HR: 0.81 [95% CI: 0.77 to 0.84]); and age 65 to 74 years, 7% versus 8% (HR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.80 to 0.88]) (pinteraction <0.001).ConclusionsIn this national study of older patients undergoing PCI, declines in DES use were most pronounced among those aged ≥85 years, yet lower adverse-event rates associated with DES versus BMS use were observed

In-Stent Restenosis in Saphenous Vein Grafts (from the DIVA Trial)

Saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) have high rates of in-stent restenosis (ISR). We compared the baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of patients and lesions that did develop ISR with those who did not develop ISR during a median follow-up of 2.7 years in the DIVA study (NCT01121224). We also examined the ISR types using the Mehran classification. ISR developed in 119 out of the 575 DIVA patients (21%), with similar incidence among patients with drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents (BMS) (21% vs 21%, p = 0.957). Patients in the ISR group were younger (67 ± 7 vs 69 ± 8 years, p = 0.04) and less likely to have heart failure (27% vs 38%, p = 0.03) and SVG lesions with Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow before the intervention (77% vs 83%, p <0.01), but had a higher number of target SVG lesions (1.33 ± 0.64 vs 1.16 ± 0.42, p <0.01), more stents implanted in the target SVG lesions (1.52 ± 0.80 vs 1.31 ± 0.66, p <0.01), and longer total stent length (31.37 ± 22.11 vs 25.64 ± 17.42 mm, p = 0.01). The incidence of diffuse ISR was similar in patients who received drug-eluting-stents and BMS (57% vs 54%, p = 0.94), but BMS patients were more likely to develop occlusive restenosis (17% vs 33%, p = 0.05). © 202

Clinical Presentation and Angiographic Characteristics of Saphenous Vein Graft Failure After Stenting Insights From the SOS (Stenting Of Saphenous Vein Grafts) Trial

ObjectivesWe sought to compare the clinical presentation and angiographic patterns of saphenous vein graft (SVG) failure after stenting with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) versus a similar bare-metal stent (BMS).BackgroundThe mode of SVG failure after stenting has been poorly characterized.MethodsThe SOS (Stenting Of Saphenous Vein Grafts) trial enrolled 80 patients with 112 lesions in 88 SVGs who were randomized to a BMS or PES. Angiographic follow-up at 12 months was available in 83% of the patients.ResultsBinary angiographic restenosis occurred in 51% (24 of 47) of BMS-treated lesions versus 9% (4 of 43) of PES-treated lesions (p < 0.0001). Graft occlusion occurred in 9 of the 21 SVGs (43%) that failed in the BMS group and in 2 of 4 SVGs (50%) that failed in the PES group. SVG failure after stenting presented as an acute coronary syndrome in 10 of the 24 patients (42%) (7 of those 10 patients presented with non–ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction), stable angina in 9 (37%) patients, and without symptoms in 5 (21%) patients. Of the 19 patients (with 20 grafts) who developed symptomatic graft failure, repeat SVG revascularization was successfully performed in all 13 (100%) subtotally obstructed SVGs but was attempted (and successful) in only 1 of 7 (14%) occluded SVGs. Revascularization of a native coronary artery was performed in an additional 4 of 7 (57%) symptomatic patients with an occluded SVG.ConclusionsSVG failure after stenting often presents as acute myocardial infarction and with SVG occlusion. Compared with BMS, PES reduce SVG failure

ACC/AHA/SCAI/AMA–Convened PCPI/NCQA 2013 Performance Measures for Adults Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association–Convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance

Journal of the American College of Cardiology Ó 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, Inc., American Medical Association, and National Committee for Quality Assurance Published by Elsevier Inc. Vol. 63, No. 7, 2014 ISSN 0735-1097/$36.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.12.003 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ACC/AHA/SCAI/AMA–Convened PCPI/NCQA 2013 Performance Measures for Adults Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association–Convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance Developed in Collaboration With the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and Mended Hearts Endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and Mended Hearts WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, MPH, FACC, FAHA, Co-Chair*; Carl L. Tommaso, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI, Co-Chairy; H. Vernon Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI*; Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, MACP*; Joseph C. Cleveland, J R , MDz; R. Adams Dudley, MD, MBA; Peter Louis Duffy, MD, MMM, FACC, FSCAIy; David P. Faxon, MD, FACC, FAHA*; Hitinder S. Gurm, MD, FACC; Lawrence A. Hamilton, Neil C. Jensen, MHA, MBA; Richard A. Josephson, MD, MS, FACC, FAHA, FAACVPRx; David J. Malenka, MD, FACC, FAHA*; Calin V. Maniu, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAIy; Kevin W. McCabe, MD; James D. Mortimer, Manesh R. Patel, MD, FACC*; Stephen D. Persell, MD, MPH; John S. Rumsfeld, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHAjj; Kendrick A. Shunk, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI*; Sidney C. Smith, J R , MD, FACC, FAHA, FACP{; Stephen J. Stanko, MBA, BA, AA#; Brook Watts, MD, MS *ACC/AHA Representative. ySociety of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Representative. zSociety of Thoracic Surgeons Representative. xAmerican Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation Representative. kACC/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures Liaison. {National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Representative. #Mended Hearts Representative. The measure specifications were approved by the American College of Cardiology Board of Trustees, American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee, in January 2013 and the American Medical Association–Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement in February 2013. This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Board of Trustees and the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee in October 2013, and the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions in December 2013. The American College of Cardiology requests that this document be cited as follows: Nallamothu BK, Tommaso CL, Anderson HV, Anderson JL, Cleveland JC, Dudley RA, Duffy PL, Faxon DP, Gurm HS, Hamilton LA, Jensen NC, Josephson RA, Malenka DJ, Maniu CV, McCabe KW, Mortimer JD, Patel MR, Persell SD, Rumsfeld JS, Shunk KA, Smith SC, Stanko SJ, Watts B. ACC/AHA/SCAI/AMA–Convened PCPI/NCQA 2013 perfor- mance measures for adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association–Convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:722–45. This article has been copublished in Circulation. Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the American College of Cardiology (www.cardiosource.org) and the American Heart Asso- ciation (http://my.americanheart.org). For copies of this document, please contact Elsevier Inc. Reprint Department, fax (212) 633-3820, e-mail [email protected]. Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the express permission of the American College of Cardiology. Requests may be completed online via the Elsevier site (http://www.elsevier.com/authors/obtaining- permission-to-re-use-elsevier-material). This Physician Performance Measurement Set (PPMS) and related data specifications were developed by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (the Consortium), including the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the American Medical Association (AMA), to facilitate quality-improvement activities by physicians. The performance measures contained in this PPMS are not clinical guidelines, do not establish a standard of medical care, and have not been tested for all potential applications. Although copyrighted, they can be reproduced and distributed, without modification, for noncommercial purposesdfor example, use by health care pro

Stent-Only Versus Adjunctive Balloon Angioplasty Approach for Saphenous Vein Graft Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND: Direct stenting without pre-dilation or post-dilation has been advocated for saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention to decrease the incidence of distal embolization, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of patients enrolled in the DIVA (Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty; ) prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients were stratified into stent-only and balloon-stent groups. Primary end point was 12-month incidence of target vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Secondary end points included all-cause death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization during follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 575 patients included in this substudy, 185 (32%) patients underwent stent-only percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients in the stent-only versus balloon-stent group had similar baseline characteristics and similar incidence of target vessel failure at 12-months (15% versus 19%; hazard ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.86–2.08]; P=0.19). During long-term follow-up (median of 2.7 years), the incidence of definite stent thrombosis (1% versus 5%; hazard ratio, 9.20 [95% CI, 1.23–68.92]; P=0.0085), the composite of definite or probable stent thrombosis (5% versus 11%; hazard ratio, 2.52 [95% CI, 1.23–5.18]; P=0.009), and target vessel myocardial infarction (8% versus 14%; hazard ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.08–3.40]; P=0.023) was lower in the stent-only group. Multivariable analysis showed that a higher number of years since coronary artery bypass grafting and >1 target saphenous vein graft lesions were associated with increased target vessel failure during entire follow-up, while preintervention Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction-3 flow was protective. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of de novo saphenous vein graft lesions, there was no difference in target vessel failure at 12 months and long-term follow-up in the stent-only versus the balloon-stent group; however, the incidence of stent thrombosis was lower in the stent-only group, as was target vessel myocardial infarction