Current Use of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Results from an Italian Multicenter Prospective Study-The ISNEP Study

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common heart arrhythmia, and its prevalence increases with age. Oral Anticoagulant Therapy (OAT) with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is essential to avoid thromboembolic events in AF. However, this treatment is associated with a high risk of bleeding and low adherence in elderly patients. Aim: The aim was to evaluate the real-world use of OAT in a population of patients aged >= 80 years in twenty-three Italian centers and to investigate the tolerance of and patient satisfaction with this therapy. Methods: The ISNEP Study is a multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling patients with AF and aged >= 80 years and treated with either NOACs or VKAs. A written questionnaire was administered to each patient to evaluate the adherence to and patient satisfaction with this therapy. Results: The study included 641 patients with a mean age of 85 (82-87) years. The use of NOACs was reported in 93.0% of cases, with the remaining 7.0% treated with VKAs. A history of stroke events was reported in five (11.1%) and one (0.2%) patients in the VKA and NOAC groups, respectively. The rate of referred ecchymosis/epistaxis was significantly higher in the VKA group compared to the NOAC group (p < 0.001). Patients receiving NOACs reported a substantial improvement in their quality of life compared to the VKA group. Conclusions: A small, but not negligible, proportion of elderly AF patients is still treated with VKAs. Patients treated with NOAC have a higher level of satisfaction with the therapy and complete adherence

Early Aggressive Versus Initially Conservative Treatment in Elderly Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome A Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the risk versus benefit ratio of an early aggressive (EA) approach in elderly patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS).BackgroundElderly patients have been scarcely represented in trials comparing treatment strategies in NSTEACS.MethodsA total of 313 patients ≥75 years of age (mean 82 years) with NSTEACS within 48 h from qualifying symptoms were randomly allocated to an EA strategy (coronary angiography and, when indicated, revascularization within 72 h) or an initially conservative (IC) strategy (angiography and revascularization only for recurrent ischemia). The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, disabling stroke, and repeat hospital stay for cardiovascular causes or severe bleeding within 1 year.ResultsDuring admission, 88% of the patients in the EA group underwent angiography (55% revascularization), compared with 29% (23% revascularization) in the IC group. The primary outcome occurred in 43 patients (27.9%) in the EA group and 55 (34.6%) in the IC group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53 to 1.19; p = 0.26). The rates of mortality (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.56), myocardial infarction (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.36), and repeat hospital stay (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.46) did not differ between groups. The primary endpoint was significantly reduced in patients with elevated troponin on admission (HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.80), but not in those with normal troponin (HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 0.75 to 3.70; p for interaction = 0.03).ConclusionsThe present study does not allow a definite conclusion about the benefit of an EA approach when applied systematically among elderly patients with NSTEACS. The finding of a significant interaction for the treatment effect according to troponin status at baseline should be confirmed in a larger size trial. (Italian Elderly ACS Study; NCT00510185

Early Aggressive Versus Initially Conservative Treatment in Elderly Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives This study sought to determine the risk versus benefit ratio of an early aggressive (EA) approach in elderly patients with non-ST-segmentelevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS). Background Elderly patients have been scarcely represented in trials comparing treatment strategies in NSTEACS. Methods A total of 313 patients >= 75 years of age (mean 82 years) with NSTEACS within 48 h from qualifying symptoms were randomly allocated to an EA strategy (coronary angiography and, when indicated, revascularization within 72 h) or an initially conservative (IC) strategy (angiography and revascularization only for recurrent ischemia). The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, disabling stroke, and repeat hospital stay for cardiovascular causes or severe bleeding within 1 year. Results During admission, 88% of the patients in the EA group underwent angiography (55% revascularization), compared with 29% (23% revascularization) in the IC group. The primary outcome occurred in 43 patients (27.9%) in the EA group and 55 (34.6%) in the IC group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53 to 1.19; p = 0.26). The rates of mortality (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.56), myocardial infarction (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.36), and repeat hospital stay (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.46) did not differ between groups. The primary endpoint was significantly reduced in patients with elevated troponin on admission (HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.80), but not in those with normal troponin (HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 0.75 to 3.70; p for interaction = 0.03). Conclusions The present study does not allow a definite conclusion about the benefit of an EA approach when applied systematically among elderlypatients with NSTEACS. The finding of a significant interaction for the treatment effect according to troponin status at baseline should be confirmed in a larger size trial. (Italian Elderly ACS Study; NCT00510185) (J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2012;5:906-16) (c) 2012 by the American College of Cardiology Foundatio

[Updated SICI-GISE position paper on institutional and operator requirements for transcatheter aortic valve implantation]

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and has become the standard of care for inoperable patients and the preferred therapy for those at increased surgical risk with peculiar clinical and anatomic features. Technology advances, growing experience and accumulating data prompted the update of the 2011 Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE) position paper on institutional and operator requirements to perform TAVI. The main objective of this document is to provide a guidance to assess the potential of institutions and operators to initiate and maintain an efficient TAVI program