| 1. |
- Capodanno, Davide, et al.
(författare)
-
Bleeding avoidance strategies in percutaneous coronary intervention
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Nature Reviews Cardiology. - : Springer Nature. - 1759-5002 .- 1759-5010. ; 19:2, s. 117-132
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- For many years, bleeding has been perceived as an unavoidable consequence of strategies aimed at reducing thrombotic complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the paradigm has now shifted towards bleeding being recognized as a prognostically unfavourable event to the same extent as having a new or recurrent ischaemic or thrombotic complication. As such, in parallel with progress in device and drug development for PCI, there is clinical interest in developing strategies that maximize not only the efficacy but also the safety (for example, by minimizing bleeding) of any antithrombotic treatment or procedural aspect before, during or after PCI. In this Review, we discuss contemporary data and aspects of bleeding avoidance strategies in PCI, including risk stratification, timing of revascularization, pretreatment with antiplatelet agents, selection of vascular access, choice of coronary stents and antithrombotic treatment regimens.
|
|
| 2. |
- Konigstein, Maayan, et al.
(författare)
-
Utility of the ACC/AHA Lesion Classification to Predict Outcomes After Contemporary DES Treatment: Individual Patient Data Pooled Analysis From 7 Randomized Trials.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - 2047-9980.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Use of the modified American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) lesion classification as a prognostic tool to predict short- and long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in the modern drug-eluting stent era is uncertain. Methods and Results Patient-level data from 7 prospective, randomized trials were pooled. Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing single lesion percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stent were analyzed according to modified ACC/AHA lesion class. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF: composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization). Clinical outcomes to 5 years were compared between patients treated for noncomplex (class A/B1) versus complex (class B2/C) lesions. Eight thousand five hundred sixteen patients (age 63.1±10.8 years, 70.5% male) were analyzed. Lesions were classified as A, B1, B2, and C in 7.9%, 28.5%, 33.7%, and 30.0% of cases, respectively. Target lesion failure was higher in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of complex versus noncomplex lesions at 30 days (2.0% versus 1.1%, P=0.004), at 1 year (4.6% versus 3.0%, P=0.0005), and at 5 years (12.4% versus 9.2%, P=0.0001). By multivariable analysis, treatment of ACC/AHA class B2/C lesions was significantly associated with higher rate of 5-year target lesion failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.17-1.64], P=0.0001) driven by significantly higher rates of target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. Conclusions In this pooled large-scale analysis, treating complex compared with noncomplex lesions according to the modified ACC/AHA classification with second-generation drug-eluting stent was associated with worse 5-year clinical outcomes. This historical classification system may be useful in the contemporary era for predicting early and late outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention.
|
|
| 3. |
- Laudani, Claudio, et al.
(författare)
-
Short Duration of DAPT Versus De-Escalation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes
- 2022
-
Ingår i: JACC. - : Elsevier BV. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 15:3, s. 268-277
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and de-escalation in a network meta-analysis using standard DAPT as common comparator.BACKGROUND: In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), shortening DAPT and de-escalating to a lower potency regimen mitigate bleeding risk. These strategies have never been randomly compared.METHODS: Randomized trials of DAPT modulation strategies in patients with ACS undergoing PCI were identified. All cause death was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE), major adverse cardiovascular events, and their components. Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. Treatments were ranked on the basis of posterior probability. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity.RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies encompassing 50,602 patients were included. The transitivity assumption was fulfilled. In the frequentist indirect comparison, the risk ratio (RR) for all-cause death was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.68-1.43). De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-0.94) and increased major bleeding (RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.07-2.21). These results were consistent in the Bayesian meta-analysis. De-escalation displayed a >95% probability to rank first for NACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, while short DAPT ranked first for major bleeding. These findings were consistent in node-split and multiple sensitivity analyses.CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, there was no difference in all-cause death between short DAPT and de-escalation. De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE, while short DAPT decreased major bleeding. These data characterize 2 contemporary strategies to personalize DAPT on the basis of treatment objectives and risk profile.
|
|
| 4. |
- Mehta, Shamir R, et al.
(författare)
-
Complete Revascularization vs Culprit Lesion-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Angina-Related Quality of Life in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction : Results From the COMPLETE Randomized Clinical Trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: JAMA cardiology. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2380-6583 .- 2380-6591. ; 7:11, s. 1091-1099
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE: In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether complete revascularization also improves angina-related health status is unknown.OBJECTIVE: To determine whether complete revascularization improves angina status in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This secondary analysis of a randomized, multinational, open label trial of patient-reported outcomes took place in 140 primary PCI centers in 31 countries. Patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized between February 1, 2013, and March 6, 2017. Analysis took place between July 2021 and December 2021.INTERVENTIONS: Following PCI of the culprit lesion, patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to receive either complete revascularization with additional PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or to no further revascularization.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency (SAQ-AF) score (range, 0 [daily angina] to 100 [no angina]) and the proportion of angina-free individuals by study end.RESULTS: Of 4041 patients, 2016 were randomized to complete revascularization and 2025 to culprit lesion-only PCI. The mean (SD) age of patients was 62 (10.7) years, and 3225 (80%) were male. The mean (SD) SAQ-AF score increased from 87.1 (17.8) points at baseline to 97.1 (9.7) points at a median follow-up of 3 years in the complete revascularization group (score change, 9.9 [95% CI, 9.0-10.8]; P < .001) compared with an increase of 87.2 (18.4) to 96.3 (10.9) points (score change, 8.9 [95% CI, 8.0-9.8]; P < .001) in the culprit lesion-only group (between-group difference, 0.97 points [95% CI, 0.27-1.67]; P = .006). Overall, 1457 patients (87.5%) were free of angina (SAQ-AF score, 100) in the complete revascularization group compared with 1376 patients (84.3%) in the culprit lesion-only group (absolute difference, 3.2% [95% CI, 0.7%-5.7%]; P = .01). This benefit was observed mainly in patients with nonculprit lesion stenosis severity of 80% or more (absolute difference, 4.7%; interaction P = .02).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization resulted in a slightly greater proportion of patients being angina-free compared with a culprit lesion-only strategy. This modest incremental improvement in health status is in addition to the established benefit of complete revascularization in reducing cardiovascular events.
|
|
| 5. |
- Sandner, Sigrid, et al.
(författare)
-
Association of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Ticagrelor With Vein Graft Failure After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: JAMA. - 1538-3598. ; 328:6, s. 554-562
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The role of ticagrelor with or without aspirin after coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains unclear.To compare the risks of vein graft failure and bleeding associated with ticagrelor dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or ticagrelor monotherapy vs aspirin among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 1, 2022, without language restriction.Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of ticagrelor DAPT or ticagrelor monotherapy vs aspirin on saphenous vein graft failure.Individual patient data provided by each trial were synthesized into a combined data set for independent analysis. Multilevel logistic regression models were used.The primary analysis assessed the incidence of saphenous vein graft failure per graft (primary outcome) in RCTs comparing ticagrelor DAPT with aspirin. Secondary outcomes were saphenous vein graft failure per patient and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events. A supplementary analysis included RCTs comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with aspirin.A total of 4 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1316 patients and 1668 saphenous vein grafts. Of the 871 patients in the primary analysis, 435 received ticagrelor DAPT (median age, 67 years [IQR, 60-72 years]; 65 women [14.9%]; 370 men [85.1%]) and 436 received aspirin (median age, 66 years [IQR, 61-73 years]; 63 women [14.5%]; 373 men [85.5%]). Ticagrelor DAPT was associated with a significantly lower incidence of saphenous vein graft failure (11.2%) per graft than was aspirin (20%; difference, -8.7% [95% CI, -13.5% to -3.9%]; OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.74]; P < .001) and was associated with a significantly lower incidence of saphenous vein graft failure per patient (13.2% vs 23.0%, difference, -9.7% [95% CI, -14.9% to -4.4%]; OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.74]; P < .001). Ticagrelor DAPT (22.1%) was associated with a significantly higher incidence of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events than was aspirin (8.7%; difference, 13.3% [95% CI, 8.6% to 18.0%]; OR, 2.98 [95% CI, 1.99 to 4.47]; P < .001), but not BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding events (1.8% vs 1.8%, difference, 0% [95% CI, -1.8% to 1.8%]; OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.37 to 2.69]; P = .99). Compared with aspirin, ticagrelor monotherapy was not significantly associated with saphenous vein graft failure (19.3% vs 21.7%, difference, -2.6% [95% CI, -9.1% to 3.9%]; OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27]; P = .44) or BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events (8.9% vs 7.3%, difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -2.8% to 6.1%]; OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.69 to 2.29]; P = .46).Among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery, adding ticagrelor to aspirin was associated with a significantly decreased risk of vein graft failure. However, this was accompanied by a significantly increased risk of clinically important bleeding.
|
|
| 6. |
- Shahim, Bahira, et al.
(författare)
-
On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity and Ischemic Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Two-Year Results From ADAPT-DES.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - 2047-9980.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Diabetes mellitus and high platelet reactivity (HPR) on clopidogrel are both associated with increased risk of ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention, but whether the HPR-associated risk of adverse ischemic events differs by diabetes mellitus status is unknown. Methods and Results ADAPT-DES (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) was a prospective, multicenter registry of patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stents. HPR was defined as P2Y12 reaction units >208 by the VerifyNow point-of-care assay. Cox multivariable analysis was used to assess whether HPR-associated risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) varied for patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM), non-ITDM, and no diabetes mellitus. Diabetes mellitus and HPR were included in an interaction analysis. Of 8582 patients enrolled, 2429 (28.3%) had diabetes mellitus, of whom 998 (41.1%) had ITDM. Mean P2Y12 reaction units were higher in patients with diabetes mellitus versus without diabetes mellitus, and HPR was more frequent in patients with diabetes mellitus. HPR was associated with consistently increased 2-year rates of MACE in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (Pinteraction=0.36). A significant interaction was present between HPR and non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus versus ITDM for 2-year MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for non-ITDM, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.39-3.73] versus adjusted HR for ITDM, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.70-1.50]; Pinteraction=0.01). Conclusions HPR was more common in patients with diabetes mellitus and was associated with an increased risk of MACE in both patients with and without diabetes mellitus. In patients with diabetes mellitus, a more pronounced effect of HPR on MACE was present in lower-risk non-ITDM patients than in higher-risk patients with ITDM. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00638794; Unique identifier: NCT00638794. ADAPT-DES (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents).
|
|
| 7. |
- Sharma, Abhinav, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical Events Classification (CEC) in Clinical Trials : Report on the Current Landscape and Future Directions - Proceedings from the CEC Summit 2018
- 2022
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 246, s. 93-104
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance: Clinical events adjudication is pivotal for generating consistent and comparable evidence in clinical trials. The methodology of event adjudication is evolving, but research is needed to develop best practices and spur innovation.Observations: A meeting of stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academic and contract research organizations, pharmaceutical and device companies, and clinical trialists convened in Chicago, IL, for Clinical Events Classification (CEC) Summit 2018 to discuss key topics and future directions. Formal studies are lacking on strategies to optimize CEC conduct, improve efficiency, minimize cost, and generally increase the speed and accuracy of the event adjudication process. Major challenges to CEC discussed included ensuring rigorous quality of the process, identifying safety events, standardizing event definitions, using uniform strategies for missing information, facilitating interactions between CEC members and other trial leadership, and determining the CEC's role in pragmatic trials or trials using real-world data. Consensus recommendations from the meeting include the following: 1) ensure an adequate adjudication infrastructure; 2) use negatively adjudicated events to identify important safety events reported only outside the scope of the primary endpoint; 3) conduct further research in the use of artificial intelligence and digital/mobile technologies to streamline adjudication processes; and 4) emphasize the importance of standardizing event definitions and quality metrics of CEC programs.Conclusions and Relevance: As novel strategies for clinical trials emerge to generate evidence for regulatory approval and to guide clinical practice, a greater understanding of the role of the CEC process will be critical to optimize trial conduct and increase confidence in the data generated.
|
|
| 8. |
- Spitzer, Ernest, et al.
(författare)
-
Independence of clinical events committees : A consensus statement from clinical research organizations
- 2022
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 248, s. 120-129
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard to assess the causal relationship between an intervention and subsequent outcomes, also known as clinical endpoints. In order to limit bias, central clinical events committees (CEC) are established to ensure consistent event reporting across participating centers, as well as complete and accurate ascertainment of endpoints. However, defining independence is challenging.Methods This consensus statement was generated by teleconferences and electronic communications among clinical research organizations from the United States, Europe and Australia. This document does not constitute regulatory guidance.Results An independent CEC is defined when the adjudicators are not primarily involved in designing, funding, sponsoring, organizing, conducting, analyzing or regulating the clinical trial for which they serve as an adjudicator, beyond their role as CEC member. Moreover, independence requires absence of conflicts of interest with the steering committee, sponsor, grant giver, manufacturer, coordinating center, other independent committees, core laboratories, medical monitor, safety physician, participating clinical sites, statistician or data manager, regulatory agencies or authorities, which could influence (or be perceived to influence) a member's objectivity in evaluating trial data. Such conflicts of interest include financial benefits, directing or advisory role (paid or unpaid), decision-making position, as well as being a direct relative. An independent adjudicator has no other role within a clinical trial.Conclusions This consensus statement presents a standardized definition of an independent CEC to be considered by clinical research organizations, manufacturers, and investigators. In addition, it provides recommendations on best practices for implementation of an independent CEC.
|
|
