COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-up

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a viral respiratory illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), may predispose patients to thrombotic disease, both in the venous and arterial circulations, due to excessive inflammation, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and stasis. In addition, many patients receiving antithrombotic therapy for thrombotic disease may develop COVID-19, which can have implications for choice, dosing, and laboratory monitoring of antithrombotic therapy. Moreover, during a time with much focus on COVID-19, it is critical to consider how to optimize the available technology to care for patients without COVID-19 who have thrombotic disease. Herein, we review the current understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, management and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who develop venous or arterial thrombosis, and of those with preexisting thrombotic disease who develop COVID-19, or those who need prevention or care for their thrombotic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155446/1/Bikdeli-2020-COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromb.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155446/3/DeepBluepermissions_agreement-CCBYandCCBY-NC_ORCID_Barnes.docxhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155446/4/license_rdf.rdfDescription of Bikdeli-2020-COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromb.pdf : ArticleDescription of DeepBluepermissions_agreement-CCBYandCCBY-NC_ORCID_Barnes.docx : Deep Blue sharing agreemen

Individual Patient Data Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials of Bivalirudin versus Heparin in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Rationale and Methodology

Background: Individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of periprocedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have reported conflicting results. Study-level meta-analyses lack granularity to adjust for confounders, explore heterogeneity, or identify subgroups that may particularly benefit or be harmed. Objective: To overcome these limitations, we sought to develop an individual patient-data pooled database of RCTs comparing bivalirudin versus heparin. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs in which ≥1,000 patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing PCI were randomized to bivalirudin versus heparin. Results: From 738 identified studies, 8 RCTs met the prespecified criteria. The principal investigators of each study agreed to provide patient-level data. The data were pooled and checked for accuracy against trial publications, with discrepancies addressed by consulting with the trialists. Consensus-based definitions were created to resolve differing antithrombotic, procedural, and outcome definitions. The project required 3.5 years to complete, and the final database includes 27,409 patients (13,346 randomized to bivalirudin and 14,063 randomized to heparin). Conclusion: We have created a large individual patient database of bivalirudin versus heparin RCTs in patients with AMI undergoing PCI. This endeavor may help identify the optimal periprocedural anticoagulation regimen for patient groups with different relative risks of adverse ischemic versus bleeding events, including those with ST-segment and non-ST-segment elevation MI, radial versus femoral access, use of a prolonged bivalirudin infusion or glycoprotein inhibitors, and others. Adherence to standardized techniques and rigorous validation processes should increase confidence in the accuracy and robustness of the results

Original Studies Outcomes of a Dedicated Stent in Coronary Bifurcations with Large Side Branches: A Subanalysis of the Randomized TRYTON Bifurcation Study

Objectives: To examine the benefit of the Tryton dedicated side branch (SB) stent compared with provisional stenting in the treatment of complex bifurcation lesions involving large SBs. Background: The TRYTON Trial was designed to evaluate the utility of a dedicated SB stent to treat true bifurcation lesions involving large (!2.5 mm by visual estimation) SBs. Patient enrolled in the trial had smaller SB diameters than intended (59% SB 2.25 mm by Core Lab QCA). The TRYTON Trial did not meet its primary endpoint due to an increased rate of peri-procedural myocardial infarctions (MIs). Methods: The TRYTON Trial randomized 704 patients to the Tryton SB stent with main vessel DES versus provisional SB treatment with main vessel DES. The rates of the primary end point of target vessel failure and the secondary powered end point of angiographic percent diameter stenosis in the SB at 9 months were assessed and compared between the two treatment strategies among patients with a SB !2.25 mm diameter at Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 00:00-00 V C 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Biomarkers in Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review

<p>Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common heart valve diseases among adults. When symptoms develop alongside severe AS, there is a poor prognosis unless aortic valve replacement (AVR) is performed; however, many patients do not report symptoms even when AS is severe. The optimal timing of AVR for these patients remains uncertain and controversial. AS is a heterogeneous disease with a complex pathophysiology involving structural and biological changes of the valve as well as adaptive and maladaptive compensatory changes in the myocardium and vasculature in response to chronic pressure overload. Several biomarkers reflecting these processes have been identified and have shown to have utility in predicting symptom onset and clinical events before and after AVR. Herein we systematically review biomarkers that have been studied in the setting of AS and summarize their potential use for risk stratification and ultimately to guide the optimal timing of AVR.</p

Dedicated Bifurcation Stent for the Treatment of Bifurcation Lesions InvolvingLarge Side Branches: Outcomes From the Tryton Confirmatory Study

Objectives: The aim of this study was to prospectively study and confirm the safety and efficacy of the Tryton Side Branch Stent in the treatment of coronary artery bifurcations involving large side branches (SBs). Background The TRYTON Pivotal randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to compare the Tryton stent with standard provisional SB stenting in large vessels. The trial inadvertently enrolled patients with too small SBs ( < 2.25 mm). The overall trial did not meet its primary endpoint, because of an increased rate of periprocedural myocardial infarction in the Tryton stent arm. A post hoc analysis restricted to the intended population showed that the trial would have met its endpoint if only patients with SBs ≥2.25 mm in diameter (by core laboratory quantitative coronary angiography) had been enrolled.MethodsThe Tryton Confirmatory Study was a prospective, single-arm extension of the TRYTON Pivotal RCT that enrolled an additional 133 patients treated with the Tryton Side Branch Stent. It was designed to confirm the results of the post hoc analysis and emphasized the inclusion of appropriately sized SBs. The primary endpoint was noninferiority with regard to periprocedural myocardial infarction (creatine kinase myocardial band 3 times the upper limit of normal) compared with a performance goal based on the TRYTON Pivotal RCT.ResultsAmong the 133 enrolled patients, 132 (99.2%) had SBs ≥2.25 mm. Baseline clinical and angiographic parameters were similar in this study and the RCT. Periprocedural myocardial infarction occurred in 10.5% of patients, which was numerically lower than the provisional group in the TRYTON Pivotal RCT (11.9%). The 95% confidence bounds did not extend beyond the pre-defined performance goal of 17.9%, meeting the noninferiority primary endpoint.ConclusionsThe Tryton Confirmatory Study, in conjunction with the post hoc analysis of the intended population in the TRYTON Pivotal RCT, supports the safety and efficacy of the Tryton Side Branch Stent for treatment of bifurcation lesions involving large SBs

Antiplatelet strategies in acute coronary syndromes: design and methodology of an international collaborative network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The optimal choice of oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors has the potential to significantly influence outcomes. We seek to compare the safety and efficacy of the three most commonly used oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor) in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) via a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis

A randomized trial of a dedicated bifurcation stent versus provisional stenting in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions

Background Bifurcation lesions are frequent among patients with symptomatic coronary disease treated by percutaneous coronary intervention. Current evidence recommends a conservative (provisional) approach when treating the side branch (SB). Objectives The TRYTON (Prospective, Single Blind, Randomized Controlled Study to Evaluate the Safety & Effectiveness of the Tryton Side Branch Stent Used With DES in Treatment of de Novo Bifurcation Lesions in the Main Branch & Side Branch in Native Coronaries) bifurcation trial sought to compare treatment of de novo true bifurcation lesions using a dedicated bifurcation stent or SB balloon angioplasty. Methods We randomly assigned patients with true bifurcation lesions to a main vessel stent plus provisional stenting or the bifurcation stent. The primary endpoint (powered for noninferiority) was target vessel failure (TVF) (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization). The secondary angiographic endpoint (powered for superiority) was in-segment percent diameter stenosis of the SB at 9 months. Results We randomized 704 patients with bifurcation coronary lesions at 58 centers (30 from Europe and 28 from the United States). At 9 months, TVF was 17.4% in the bifurcation stent group compared with 12.8% in the provisional group (p = 0.11), mainly because of a higher periprocedural myocardial infarction rate (13.6% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.19). The TVF difference of +4.6% (2-sided 95% confidence interval: -1.0 to 10.3; upper limit of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval: 10.3) was not within the pre-specified noninferiority margin of 5.5% (p = 0.42 for noninferiority). The SB in-segment diameter stenosis among the angiographic cohort was lower in the bifurcation stent group compared with the provisional group (31.6% vs. 38.6%, p = 0.002 for superiority), with no difference in binary restenosis rates (diameter stenosis ≥50%) at 9 months follow-up (22.6% vs. 26.8%, p = 0.44). Conclusions Provisional stenting should remain the preferred strategy for treatment of non-left main true coronary bifurcation lesions. (Prospective, Single Blind, Randomized Controlled Study to Evaluate the Safety & Effectiveness of the Tryton Side Branch Stent Used With DES in Treatment of de Novo Bifurcation Lesions in the Main Branch & Side Branch in Native Coronaries [TRYTON]; NCT01258972